fMg 


DUKE 

UNIVERSITY 


LIBRARY 


Inthrraitjj  ^tidies 

Publtalfeb  by  % Hnthpraity  of  (Eutrimtatt 

Series  II.  MARCH-APRIL,  1907.  Vol.  Ill,  No.  2 


THE  ROMAN  COHORT 
CASTELLA 


GEORGE  H.  ALLEN,  Ph.  D., 

Assistant  Professor  of  Latin,  University  of  Cincinnati. 


Issued  Bi-Monthly. 


University  of  Cincinnati  Press,  Cincinnati,  O. 

Entered  February  24,  1906  at  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  as  second  class  matter,  under 
Act  of  Congress  of  July  16,  1894. 


CONTENTS 


SIM 'll 
C.  514S 
S^t,  X. 


THE  ROMAN  COHORT  CASTEELA 

1.  Choice  of  Location 9 

2.  Form  and  Area,  considered  in  Connection  with 

the  Size  and  Character  of  the  Garrisons 13 

3.  Internal  Arrangements 19 

4.  Fortifications 35 

5.  Commanders 

a.  Command  of  the  “Cohort  Castella” 39 

b.  Command  of  the  “Numerus  Castella” 42 

PLANS 

1.  General  Scheme  of  the  Relationship  of  the  Base 

Lines  and  Central  Building  of  the  Castella  to 
their  Front 22 

2.  Plan  of  the  Central  Building  at  Wiesbaden 30 

3.  Plan  of  the  Central  Building  at  Theilenhofen  ...  31 

4.  Plan  of  the  Central  Building  at  Arnsburg 32 

5.  Cross  Sections  of  the  Ramparts  at  Urspring,  rep- 

resenting them  as  before  and  after  the  Erec- 
tion of  the  Stone  Wall 36 

6.  Sectional  Representations  of  the  Walls  at  Worth 

as  they  were  found  lying  in  1882  and  1887  and 
as  they  must  have  stood  originally 38 

7.  Plan  of  the  Roman  Caslellum  at  Chesters  (Cilur- 

num) 44 

8.  Map  of  the  Limes  in  Germany  and  Rhaetia 45 

9.  Plan  of  the  Roman  Castellmn  “Saalburg” 46 

10.  Southwestern  Corner  of  the  Fortifications  of  the 

Saalburg  (restored) 47 

11.  South  Front  of  the  Saalburg  with  Porta  Prae- 

toria  (restored) 47 

12.  Porta  Praetor ia  of  the  Saalburg  (restored) 48 

13.  Sacellum  or  Shrine  at  the  Saalburg  (restored)...  48 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/romancohortcaste01alle 


THE  ROMAN  "COHORT  CASTELLA”. 

The  Romans  were  accustomed  from  the  earliest  times  to  fortify 
their  camps  with  ramparts  or  palisades  whenever  an  army  made  a 
halt,  in  time  of  war,  if  even  for  a single  night.  The  arrangement 
of  these  temporary  camps,  large  enough  to  accommodate  entire 
consular  armies,  is  described  for  the  republican  period  by  Poly- 
bius (VI,  27-32),  for  the  imperial  epoch  by  Hyginus  in  a special 
treatise  ( Liber  de  Munitionibus  Castroruni) . 

When  Rorrrtan  authority  was  extended  over  conquered  lands 
outside  of  Italy,  the  necessity  arose  for  distributing  the  forces  of 
the  standing  army  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  defense 
and  of  maintaining  military  frontiers  with  garrisons  stationed  at 
convenient  intervals.  This  led  to  the  erection  of  fortified  camps 
for  permanent  occupation.  These  are  to  be  distinguished  from 
the  temporary  camps  mentioned  above. 

The  permanent  camps  varied  in  size  according  to  the  numerical 
strength  of  the  bodies  of  troops  which  they  were  intended  to 
shelter.  The  combination  of  large  camps  for  the  legions  with  a 
series  of  smaller  forts  for  the  alae  and  cohorts  is  the  arrangement 
which  was  characteristic  of  the  distribution  of  the  forces  on  all 
the  boundaries  under  the  empire.  The  immediate  protection  of 
the  frontier  was  regularly  entrusted  to  the  auxiliary  troops,  the 
cohorts  and  alae,  which  were  levied  and  recruited  among  the  sub- 
ject communities  of  the  empire.  The  legionary  camps,  on  land 
frontiers  at  least,  were  always  situated  some  distance  to  the  rear 
of  the  actual  boundary. 

The  word  ccistra  was  applied  to  the  larger  camps,  both  those 
intended  for  armies  on  the  march,  as  described  by  Polybius  and 
Hyginus,  and  these  designed  for  permanent  occupation  by  the 
legions.  The  latter  were  distinguished  as  hiberna  or  castra 
stativa.  The  smaller  forts  for  the  auxiliary  cohorts  and  alae  were 
called  castella.  This  term  may  also  include  still  smaller  fortresses 
erected  for  the  numeri1  or  for  detachments  (vex illationes) . It  is 
convenient  to  designate  as  “cohort  castella,”  or  cohort  forts,  these 

iWith  regard  to  the  composition  and  organization  of  the  “numeri” 

see  note  3,  page  5. 


3 


fortified  camps  which  were  garrisoned  by  single  bodies  of  the 
auxiliary  troops.  It  is  the  purpose  of  the  present  paper  to  describe 
the.  characteristic  features  of  the  “cohort  castella.”  But  these 
fortresses  were  erected,  as  we  have  observed,  on  the  borders  of 
the  empire,  and  formed  part  of  a comprehensive  system  of  defen- 
sive works.  It  will  be  of  advantage,  therefore,  by  way  of  intro- 
duction, to  consider  briefly  the  development  of  the  fortified 
boundary  as  a whole  with  special  reference  to  the  chronology  of  its 
different  portions.  Our  attention  must  be  confined,  for  the  most 
part,  to  Britain  and  Germany,  which  contain  nearly  all  the  extant 
remains  of  the  “cohort  castella.”2 

The  development  of  a fortified  land  boundary  in  Germany 
commenced  with  the  permanent  extension  of  Roman  dominion 
east  of  the  Rhine.  As  early  as  the  reign  of  Vespasian  the  Romans 
had  carried  forward  their  outposts  from  Strassburg  (Argentora- 
tum)  and  Windisch  (Vindonissa)  to  the  valley  of  the  Neckar. 
Castella  at  Waldmossingen  and  Sulz  date  from  this  period.  At 
the  same  time  an  advance  was  made  in  Rhaetia  to  the  north  of 
the  Danube,  where  the  castellum  at  Heidenheim  goes  back  to  the 
first  century. 

But  the  decisive  step  leading  to  the  establishment  of  a perma- 
nent land  boundary  east  of  the  Rhine  was  taken  by  Domitian  as  a 
result  of  the  war  against  the  Chatti  in  83  A.  D.  At  that  time  the 
valley  of  the  Main  was  occupied  by  the  Romans  as  far  as  Hanau 
and  the  barbarians  were  driven  from  their  fastnesses  in  Mt. 
Taunus.  The  limes,  or  boundary,  traced  at  that  time,  extended 
from  the  Rhine  near  Neuwied  to  the  Main  at  Hanau,  following, 
as  far  as  possible,  the  summit  of  the  Taunus  range.  It  was  repre- 
sented, at  first,  merely  by  a road  or  cutting  through  the  forest. 
The  cohorts  and  alae  which  were  appointed  for  garrison  duty  in 
the  new  territory  were  stationed  in  castella  situated,  not  on  the 
actual  boundary  line,  but  some  distance  to  the  south  of  it.  Wies- 
baden, Hofheim,  Heddernheim,  Okarben  and  Friedberg  are  the 
sites  of  the  “cohort  castella”  of  this  period.  On  the  limes  itself, 
at  convenient  intervals,  smaller  forts  consisting  of  earthworks 

2In  the  following  outline  I present  mainly  the  conclusions  of  Krueger 
( Die  Limesanlagen  in  nordliehem  England,  Jahrhuecher  des  Vereins  von 
Altertumsfreunden  im  Rheinlande,  Heft  110,  1905)  on  the  chronology  of 
the  works  in  Britain,  and  of  Febricius  {Die  Entstehung  der  roemischen 
Limesanlagen  in  Deutschland,  Trier,  1905)  for  those  in  Germany. 


4 


were  erected  for  the  detachments  which  were  detailed  from  the 
castella  for  sentinel  duty  on  the  actual  boundary. 

Early  in  the  reign  of  Trajan  the  boundary  was  extended  along 
the  course  of  the  Main  from  the  termination  of  Domitian’s  line  as 
far  as  Worth.  From  there  the  limes  was  carried  across  the  Oden- 
wald  to  a point  on  the  Neckar  near  the  mouth  of  the  Jagst.  The 
river  Neckar  formed  the  continuation  of  the  new  line  to  a point 
near  Cannstadt,  where  the  land  boundary  commenced  again,  and 
was  extended  across  the  country  as  far  as  the  northwest  corner 
of  the  province  of  Rhaetia.  On  this  new  line  the  “cohort  cas- 
tella” were  erected  close  to  the  boundary  and  not  in  the  interior. 
Through  the  Odenwald  there  were  “cohort  castella,”  such  as 
Oberscheidental  and  Neckarburken,  and  smaller  forts  of  earth- 
works corresponding  to  those  of  Domitian’s  line.  Seckmauern 
is  the  only  one  of  these  earlier  forts  of  earthworks  which  was  not 
re-erected  in  stone  at  a later  period. 

With  the  extension  of  this  new  line  the  legionary  camp  at 
Windisch  (Vindonissa)  and  the  castella  at  Sulz  and  Waldmos- 
singen  were  abandoned.  These  sites  were  henceforth  in  the 
interior  of  the  province,  and  would  have  had  no  strategic  signifi- 
cance. At  this  time,  probably,  the  limes  was  continued  along 
the  northern  frontier  of  Rhaetia  as  far  as  the  Danube  at  Eining. 
Weissenburg  and  Pfiinz  were  erected  as  early  as  this,  though 
perhaps  as  earthworks. 

Under  Hadrian  the  cohorts  and  alae,  which  had  been  stationed 
in  the  older  forts  between  the  Taunus  range  and  the  Main,  were 
transferred  to  the  boundary  and  provided  with  new  castella. 
Most  of  these  newer  fortresses  had  defenses  in  stone.  Hadrian 
fortified  the  whole  line  of  the  limes  from  the  Rhine  to  the  Danube. 
The  continuous  barrier  which  he  erected  consisted  of  a palisade 
of  stakes  sunk  into  the  ground  to  the  depth  of  1.4  meters  and  at 
least  2 meters  high  above  the  earth.  The  upright  stakes  were 
secured  by  stones  placed  against  them  in  the  ground  as  wedges 
and  tied  together  by  posts  fastened  to  them  in  a horizontal  posi- 
tion. 

During  the  reign  of  Antoninus  Pius,  shortly  after  142  A.  D., 
bodies  of  Brittones,  organized  as  numeric  made  their  appearance 

3In  the  wider  sense  of  the  word,  “numerus”  denoted  any  regular 
body  of  soldiers  under  the  command  of  a single  officer.  But,  during 


5 


along  the  limes  in  the  Odenwald.  These  were  probably  Britons 
who  had  been  conquered  in  the  campaign  of  Antoninus  Pius  when 
the  boundary  in  Britain  was  carried  from  the  Tyne-Solway  line 
to  the  Forth  and  Clyde.  The  inscriptions  in  the  Odenwald,  be- 
tween the  Main  and  Neckar,  offer  evidence  for  a considerable 
building  activity  at  the  time  of  the  appearance  of  these  new  lines, 
especially  in  145-146  A.  D.  At  this  time  the  watch  towers  and 
most  of  the  castella  of  the  smaller  class  on  the  line  between  the 
rivers  mentioned  were  re-erected  in  stone. 

One  of  the  “numerus  castella,”  if  we  may  coin  such  a term  to 
denote  the  forts  of  this  smaller  class,  was  erected  with  defenses 
in  stone  200  meters  east  of  the  “cohort  castellum”  at  Neckar- 
burken. 

About  155  A.  D.  a new  boundary  was  laid  off  to  the  east  of 
the  Odenwald-Neckar  line.  It  left  the  Main  at  Miltenberg  and 
extended  in  almost  a straight  line  to  Welzheim  near  the  northwest 
corner  of  Rhaetia.  At  this  time  the  cohorts  on  the  inner  line 
were  transferred  to  corresponding  castella  on  the  outer  line,  leav- 
ing only  the  numeri  in  the  former  positions.  The  fortresses  on 
the  new  Miltenberg- Welzheim  line  were  erected  from  the  first  in 
stone.  In  fact,  during  all  of  this  period,  stone  walls  were  grad- 
ually taking  the  place  of  earthworks  along  the  entire  line  of  the 
limes. 

Under  Commodus  the  Odenwald-Neckar  line  was  given  up 
and  the  Brittones  transferred  to  the  corresponding  positions  on 
the  outer  line.  Additions  to  the  “cohort  castella,”  or  else  smaller 
forts  near  the  larger  ones,  were  erected  to  shelter  the  Brittones. 
As  a result  we  find  fortified  annexes,  as  at  Osterburken,  and 
double  “castella,”  as  at  Welzheim  and  Oehringen. 

The  frontier  fortifications  in  Germany  reached  the  final  stage 
in  their  development  with  the  erection  of  a stone  wall,  the  so- 
called  “Teufelsmauer,”  along  the  boundary  in  Rhaetia,  and  the 
construction  of  the  earth  rampart  with  accompanying  ditch,  the 
“Pfahlgraben,”  on  the  German  line. 

the  first  three  centuries  of  the  empire,  the  term  was  rarely  employed 
in  this  general  sense.  A narrower  meaning  developed,  denoting  bodies 
of  troops  which,  being  neither  alae  nor  cohorts,  had  no  special  desig- 
nation. In  practice  the  numeri  were  distinguished  from  the  alae  and 
cohorts  by  the  fact  that  they  were  armed  and  organized  in  accordance 
with  the  manner  of  warfare  of  particular  nations  embraced  in  the  em- 
pire. They  were  recruited  in  the  localities  where  the  influence  of 
Roman  civilization  had  been  least  felt. 


6 


The  above  outline  furnishes  the  following-  general  data  for 
determining  the  chronology  of  the  castella  in  Germany  and 
Rhaetia : 

1.  The  castella  situated  at  some  distance  behind  the  boundary 
were  erected  in  the  latter  part  of  the  first  century.  Those  of  this 
class  which  were  situated  north  of  the  Main  were  abandoned 
under  Hadrian. 

2.  The  “cohort  castella”  on  the  Odenwald-Neckar  line  were 
erected  during  the  early  years  of  the  reign  of  Trajan  and  con- 
tinued in  use  until  about  155  A.  D. 

3.  The  smaller  earth  forts  through  the  Odenwald  were  prob- 
ably erected  during  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  Trajan.  They 
were  replaced,  for  the  most  part,  about  145-146  A.  D.,  by  stone 
castella  which  were  occupied  by  numeri  of  Britons.  The 
“numerus  castella”  on  the  Odenwald-Neckar  line  probably  con- 
tinued in  use  until  the  reign  of  Commodus. 

4.  The  castella  along  the  Rhaetian  frontier  are  not  earlier 
than  Trajan.  Most  of  the  extant  remains  are  still  more  recent, 
the  castella  having  been  rebuilt  from  time  to  time. 

5.  The  castella  on  the  frontier  between  the  Rhine  and  Main 
are  not  earlier  than  Hadrian.  The  extant  remains  do  not  usually 
go  back  to  Hadrian  because  most  of  the  castella,  like  those  in  the 
preceding  group,  were  rebuilt  at  different  times. 

6.  The  castella  on  the  Miltenberg-Welzheim  section  of  the 
limes  are  not  earlier  than  155  A.  D. 

In  Britain  the  earliest  system  of  defenses  corresponding  with 
those  just  described,  which  endured  for  any  time,  was  the  so- 
called  “Vallum  of  Hadrian,”  which  was  carried  across  the  island 
from  the  Solway  Firth,  near  Bowness,  to  the  estuary  of  the  Tyne. 
In  reality  it  consists  of  two  parallel  mounds  or  earth  ramparts 
with  a fosse  or  ditch  running  between  them.  The  remains  of 
about  a dozen  castella  have  been  discovered  to  the  south  of  the 
“vallum.”  Two  of  these  are  in  stone;  the  others  in  earthworks. 

These  forts  must  have  been  the  stations  for  the  cohorts  and 
alae  which  were  to  defend  the  frontier. 

Antoninus  Pius  erected  a new  barrier  in  Britain  about  143 
A.  D.  It  extended  from  the  Clyde  to  the  Forth  and  consisted  of 
a rampart  constructed  of  turf  and  a fosse.  This  new  line,  usu- 


7 


ally  called  the  “Antonine  Vallum,”  was  provided  with  castella  at 
convenient  intervals.  But  these  forts  appear  to  have  been  aban- 
doned after  about  forty  years. 

Septimius  Severus  either  gave  up  himself  the  more  northern 
boundary  of  Antoninus  Pius  or  at  least  proceeded  on  the  assump- 
tion that  its  earlier  abandonment  was  to  be  permanent.  For  he 
re-enforced  or  replaced  the  existing  works  on  Hadrian’s  earlier 
line  by  the  construction  of  a new  turf  rampart  and  a ditch.  The 
course  of  this  new  vallum  lay  to  the  north  of  Hadrian’s  barrier. 
Although  the  interval  between  the  two  lines  is  usually  only  25  to 
50  meters  and  never  more  than  800  meters,  new  castella  were 
erected  for  the  later  line. While  the  earlier  forts  were  separated 
from  Hadrian’s  vallum  by  an  interval,  at  times  as  great  as  one- 
half  or  three-quarters  of  a mile,  the  later  castella  of  the  time  of 
Septimius  Severus  were  so  situated  that  the  new  barrier  fell  into 
line  with  one  of  their  sides. 

At  a later  period  the  turf  rampart  was  replaced  by  a stone 
wall.  The  stone  wall  occupies,  for  the  most  part,  the  place  of 
the  earlier  turf  rampart.  The  same  castella  served  for  the  vallum 
of  Septimius  Severus  and  the  stone  wall,  but  at  the  time  of  the 
erection  of  the  latter  some  of  the  forts  seem  to  have  been  ex- 
tended towards  the  north  so.  as  to  project  for  about  a third  of 
their  length  beyond  this  later  fortified  line. 

In  view  of  the  comparatively  frequent  changes  involving  the 
whole  system  of  defenses  in  Britain  we  may  assume,  perhaps,  that 
the  remains  of  each  fort  go  back  to  the  time  of  erection  of  the 
series  of  fortifications  of  which  they  form  a part.  For  the  neces- 
sity of  extensive  reconstruction  would  scarcely  have  arisen  during 
the  periods  which  intervened  between  the  erection  of  the  several 
fortified  barriers.  In  view  of  this  supposition  the  British  cas- 
tella, in  so  far  as  they  form  a part  of  the  frontier  works,  may  be 
divided,  chronologically,  into  the  following  classes: 

1.  The  forts  connected  with  Hadrian’s  vallum.  We  can 
not  determine  whether  these  continued  to  be  occupied  after  the 
“Antonine  Vallum”  was  laid  out  or  not. 

2.  The  forts  on  the  “Antonine  Vallum.” 

3.  The  castella  in  line  with  the  vallum  of  Septimius  Severus. 

4.  The  extensions  of  some  of  the  preceding  to  the  north  of 
the  line  of  the  stone  wall. 


8 


The  castella  in  Germany  and  Britain  may  be  conveniently  dis- 
cussed under  the  following  headings:  I.  Choice  of  location; 

2.  Form  and  area,  considered  in  connection  with  the  size  and 
character  of  the  garrisons ; 3.  Internal  arrangements ; 4.  Forti- 
fications ; 5.  Commanders. 

1.  CHOICE  OF  LOCATION. 

Both  Hyginus  (op.  cit.  56)  and  Vegetius  (III,  8)  advise  as 
location  for  a camp  a site  sloping  gently  in  the  direction  of  the 
front,  which  the  former  writer  defines  in  this  passage  as  the  side 
nearest  the  enemy.  This  rule  is  followed  in  most  of  the  castella, 
but  there  are  at  least  six  exceptions  in  which  the  surface  of  the 
area  enclosed  by  the  forts  descends  in  a direction  opposite  to  that 
of  the  enemy.4 

Vegetius  advises  also  the  selection  of  sites  not  commanded  by 
nearby  elevations.  But  this  principle  was  not  strictly  adhered  to, 
as  is  shown  by  the  notable  instance  of  the  Saalburg,  which  is  com- 
manded on  the  southeast  by  the  Gickelsberg.5 

The  general  policy  seems  to  have  been  to  choose  positions  en- 
joying a good  prospect  without  being  inaccessible.  The  castella 
lying  near  the  boundary  were  usually  placed  where  a section  of 
the  limes  fell  within  the  field  of  vision. 

The  Romans  almost  invariably  selected  points  where  a copious 
supply  of  good  drinking  water  could  be  obtained  from  springs  or 
wells,  either  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  or  within  the  walls 
of  the  camps  themselves. 

An  important  factor  in  determining  the  location  of  the  castella 
which  lay  near  the  boundary  was  the  position  of  the  roads  which 
crossed  the  limes.  For  one  of  the  most  important  purposes  of 
the  barrier  was  to  control  communication  to  and  fro.  The  bar- 
barians were  permitted  to  cross  l-he  limes  only  when  disarmed  and 
under  surveillance  and  upon  payment  of  custom  dues.  The  ex- 
change of  wares  was  limited  to  a few  fixed  points  along  the  line.6 

•^Kernel,  Hesselbach,  Oberscheidental,  Seckmauern,  and  the  western 
fort  at  Oehringen,  and  Niederberg.  In  general,  sites  seem  to  have 
been  selected  which  were  as  nearly  level  as  possible. 

SHolzhausen,  Feldberg,  Arzbach,  Urspring,  Heftrich,  Lorch,  Hunzel, 
Pfuenz  and  Seckmauern  might  be  mentioned  in  the  same  category. 

OTac.  Hist.  IV,  64,  Germ.  41. 


9 


It  was  expedient,  therefore,  to  erect  the  forts  at  or  near  the 
points  where  roads  crossed  the  limes  and  offered  access  to  the 
territory  of  the  empire.  On  the  barriers  in  Britain  subsequent  to 
that  of  Hadrian  the  only  openings  giving  an  opportunity  for  com- 
munication across  the  boundary  line  seem  to  have  been  the  gates 
of  the  forts,  while  in  Germany  the  roads  passed  at  the  side  of  the 
castella. 

The  intervals  at  which  the  castella  were  erected  along  the 
boundary  varied  on  different  parts  of  the  limes.  The  distance 
from  the  Rhine  to  Welzheim  on  the  limes  in  Upper  Germany  is 
375  kilometers,  including  the  section  where  the  Main  forms  the 
boundary.  There  were  probably  36  castella  connected  with  this 
line.  The  average  distance  between  them  was,  therefore,  approx- 
imately 10  kilometers.  The  Notitia  Dignitatum , Occidentis, 
chap.  38,  ed.  Booking,  page  144,  gives  23  forts  on  the  later  boun- 
dary in  Britain  which  was  117  kilometers  in  length.  The  average 
interval  would,  therefore,  be  5 kilometers.7 

On  the  line  in  Caledonia  we  find  19  castella  for  a distance  of 
59  kilometers,  at  an  average  interval  of  about  3 kilometers. 

In  considering  the  conditions  which  determined  the  selection 
of  sites  for  the  castella  it  is  of  particular  importance  to  notice  their 
location  with  reference  to  the  limitcs  'or  boundaries.  For  the 
latter  were  all  eventually  fortified  with  continuous  ramparts  or 
barriers  of  some  sort  with  which  most  of  the  castella  stood  in 
such  intimate  relationship  as  to  form  with  them  a common  system 
of  defensive  works. 

The  forts  erected  in  connection  with  the  vallum  of  Hadrian  in 
Britain  were  situated  at  some  distance  to  the  rear  of  its  course,  in 
some  instances  as  far  as  one-half  to  three-quarters  of  a mile. 

In  selecting  the  points  where  the  castella  on  the  “Antonine 
Vallum”  were  to  be  erected  a different  practice  was  adopted. 
They  were  placed  in  juxtaposition  to  the  line  of  the  new  barrier, 
in  such  a manner  that  the  northern  wall  of  each  fort  fell  into  line 
with  the  course  of  the  vallum. 

7It  is  possible  that  the  average  distance  was  really  greater,  for  there 
is  some  reason  to  believe  that  only  eighteen  of  the  twenty-three  sta- 
tions mentioned  in  the  Notitia  Dignitatum,  were  immediately  connected 
with  the  wall,  the  others  being  supporting  forts  to  the  north  and  south 
of  it;  cf.  Bruce,  The  Hand-hook  to  the  Roman  Wall,  London,  1895, 
page  27. 


10 


The  same  method  is  exhibited  in  the  works  on  the  Solway- 
Tyne  line  which  we  have  ascribed  to  Septimius  Severus.  For  the 
northern  walls  of  the  stone  forts  built  on  the  line  of  his  turf 
vallum  were  in  alignment  with  the  course  of  this  frontier  barrier. 

This  practice,  which  was  followed  in  Britain  after  Hadrian, 
was  not  observed  in  Germany,  where  Gross-Krotzenburg  is  the 
only  fort  which  touches  the  boundary  rampart.  While  there  is 
great  variety  with  regard  to  the  distance  of  the  other  castella  from 
the  limes , some  degree  of  uniformity  may  be  observed  in  the  rela- 
tive proximity  or  remoteness  of  the  forts  on  particular  sections  of 
the  boundary. 

We  have  already  observed  (page  4)  that  the  “cohort  castella” 
north  of  the  Main  which  were  erected  during  the  early  period  of 
occupation  were  not  located  with  special  reference  to  the  line  of 
the  limes. 

The  distance  from  the  limes  of  forts  like  Wiesbaden,  Hof- 
heim,  Heddernheim  and  Okarben  would  be  determined,  therefore, 
largely  by  fortuitous  or  purely  local  circumstances  and  would  have 
no  significance  for  the  present  discussion.  Moreover,  some  of 
the  castella  south  of  the  Main,  as  Heidenheim,  Urspring,  Wald- 
mossingen  and  Sulz,  clearly  fall  into  the  same  class. 

The  circumstances  connected  with  the  abandonment  of  Ma- 
rienfels  seem  to  indicate,  approximately,  for  the  region  north 
of  the  Main,  the  distance  from  the  limes  beyond  which  castella 
were  no  longer  considered  as  having  an  organic  connection  with 
the  boundary  system.  For  at  the  time  of  Hadrian’s  reorgan- 
ization of  the  frontier  arrangements  Marienfels,  at  a distance  of  2 
kilometers  from  the  boundary  line,  was  given  up  for  Hunzel, 
which  was  only  200  meters  from  the  same  line.  It  would 
seem,  therefore,  that  forts  which  were  separated  from  the  limes 
by  an  interval  of  more  than  2 kilometers,  if  not  abandoned  at  this 
time,  must  have  owed  their  subsequent  occupation  to  the  strategic 
significance  of  their  own  particular  positions,  independently  of 
the  course  of  the  limes.  For  this  reason  Niederberg  (7  kilo- 
meters from  the  limes),  Heddesdorf  and  Ober-Florstadt  (2500 
meters)  will  not  be  taken  into  consideration  in  the  present  dis- 
cussion. Besides,  these  three  forts  date  from  the  early  part  of  the 
reign  of  Trajan  when  the  arrangement  of  Domitian  for  the  dis- 
position of  the  castella  was  still  in  force,  and  before  the  limes  was 
provided  with  a continuous  barrier. 


11 


With  these  exceptions  the  castella  on  the  line  between  the 
Rhine  and  Main,  so  far  as  their  distances  can  be  ascertained,  are 
separated  from  the  limes  by  intervals  varying  from  42  (Arzbach) 
to  1200  meters  (Arnsburg  and  Echzell).8 

On  the  water  boundaries  formed  by  the  Main  and  Neckar  the 
castella  are,  for  the  most  part,  as  near  the  rivers  as  the  character 
of  the  banks  would  permit. 

On  the  Odenwald  line  Oberscheidental  is  24.5  meters  from  the 
limes.  The  “cohort  castellum”  at  Neckarburken  stands  at  a dis- 
tance of  about  260  meters  from  the  line.  The  eastern  castellum 
at  the  same  point,  which  was  built  for  a numerus,  is  only  about 
25  meters  from  the  boundary  and  the  other  “numerus  castella,” 
Schlossau,  Hesselbach,  Wiirzberg,  Eulbach,  Vielbrunn  and 
Lutzelbach,  on  the  same  line,  are  equally  near  it.  Seckmauern, 
which  dates  from  the  earliest  period  of  Roman  occupation  in  this 
region,  is  traversed  bv  the  limes. 

On  the  outer  line,  which  extends  from  near  Miltenberg  to 
Welzheim,  the  castella  stand  at  distances  varying  from  232  to 
1500  meters.9 

The  castella  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Rhaetian  boundary 
fall  into  two  classes  with  regard  to  their  distance  from  the  limes. 
The  first  contains  forts  which  are  distant  from  40  meters  (Hal- 
heim)  to  2200  meters  (Theilenhofen),  the  second  a series  of  forts 
at  distances  of  from  6 to  14  kilometers.10 

In  Britain  there  exist  the  remains  of  many  detached  forts  be- 
tween the  vallum  of  Hadrian  and  that  of  Antoninus  Pius  and  even 
north  of  the  latter,  but  in  Germany  only  one  instance  occurs  of  a 
fort  erected  beyond  the  frontier,  the  eastern  castellum  at  Welz- 
heim. 

8The  distances,  reckoned  in  meters,  are  as  follows:  Arzbach  42, 

Hunzel  200,  Holzhausen  70,  Kernel  200,  Zugmantel  396,  Heftrich  50, 
Feldberg  120,  Saalburg  220,  Capersburg  61,  Langenhain  300,  Arnsburg 
1,200,  Echzell  1,200,  Altenstadt  1,000,  Markoebel  200  and  Rueckingen  200. 

9Miltenberg  lies  326  meters  from  the  Main,  which  forms  the  bound- 
ary at  the  point  nearest  its  location.  The  distances  of  the  other  forts 
are  as  follows:  Wallduern  330,  Osterburken  500,  Jagsthausen  1,250,  the 

eastern  fort  at  Oehringen  232,  the  western  fort  at  the  same  place  1,300, 
Mainhardt  626,  Murrhardt  1,500,  and  the  western  fort  at  Welzheim  355. 

iOThe  nearer  forts  are:  Lorch  1,200  (meters),  Schierenhof  1,400, 

Unterboebingen  1,000,  Buch  1,200,  Halheim  40,  Ruffenhofen  2,100,  Dam- 
bach  100,  and  Theilenhofen  2,200. 

The  more  distant  castella  are:  Aalen  10  (kilometers),  Weissenburg 

6,  Pfuenz  9,  Pfoering  9,  and  Koesching  13. 


12 


2.  FORM  AND  AREA,  CONSIDERED  IN  CONNECTION 
WITH  THE  SIZE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  THE 
GARRISONS. 

The  castella,  as  has  already  been  mentioned,  were  garrisoned 
by  single  alae,  cohorts  or  numeri.  No  instance  is  known  where 
two  alae,  two  cohorts,  two  numeri  or  a garrison  consisting  of  the 
combination  of  an  ala  and  a cohort  occupied  a single  castellnm. 
But  sometimes  a numerns  was  stationed  in  company  with  a cohort 
or  ala.11 

The  alae,  or  squadrons  of  horse,  usually  consisted  of  500  men 
( alae  quingenariae) . A few  contained  1000  men  ( alae  mil- 
iariae ).  The  cohorts,  or  divisions  of  foot,  received  a similar  ap- 
portionment of  strength.  About  one  quarter  of  the  known  cohorts 
are  cohortes  miliariae.  About  the  same  proportion  of  all  the 
cohorts,  miliariae  and  quingenariae  together,  are  known  to  be 
cohortes  equitatae,  mixed  divisions  of  horse  and  foot.  But  the 
real  proportion  was  probably  much  greater.  The  cohortes  mil- 
iariae equitatae  are  said  to  have  contained  760  infantry  and  270 
cavalry,  the  corresponding  numbers  for  the  cohortes  quingenariae 
being  380  and  120.12 

The  numeri  are  said  to  have  varied  in  numerical  strength  from 
300  to  goo. 

Thus  there  was  great  diversity  in  the  strength  of  the  bodies 
of  troops  assigned  as  garrisons  to  the  different  castella.  We 
should  naturally  expect  the  size  of  the  garrisons  to  be  the  chief 
factor  in  determining  the  area  of  the  forts.  But  it  was  not  suf- 
ficient to  establish  a single  prescribed  area  for  bodies  of  1000  men 
and  another  for  those  of  500.  It  is  obvious  that  cavalry  must 
have  required  more  space  than  infantry,  so  that  not  only  would 
alae  require  larger  camps  than  cohorts  of  the  same  numerical 
strength,  but  cohortes  equitatae  would  demand  a greater  space 
than  the  cohorts  which  were  made  up  entirely  of  foot  soldiers. 
When  we  consider  further  the  numeri  of  all  sizes  and  the  fact 

nin  these  instances,  as  was  mentioned  on  page  6,  accommodation 
was  usually  provided  for  the  numerns  in  smaller  subsidiary  forts,  or  in 
fortified  annexes  attached  to  castella  of  the  larger  class.  We  find  the 
combination  of  a large  and  small  fort  at  Neckarburken,  Oehringen  and 
Welzheim,  annexes  at  Camelon,  Castlecary,  Osterburken  and  other 
points. 

i2Cf.  Hyginus,  op.  cit.  26  and  27. 


13 


that  the  character  of  the  sites  chosen  must  have  exercised  some 
influence  in  determining-  the  extent  of  the  space  which  it  was  ex- 
pedient to  fortify,  we  shall  not  be  surprised  to  find  the  greatest 
variety  in  the  area  of  the  castella. 

It  will  be  instructive  to  compare  the  sizes  of  the  castella  with 
the  character  of  the  bodies  of  troops  which  formed  their  garrison, 
so  far  as  these  are  known,13  with  a view  to  ascertaining  the  rela- 
tion existing  between  the  area  of  the  camps  and  the  numerical 
strength  of  the  bodies  of  troops  for  which  they  were  intended. 

In  the  following  table  I have  arranged  the  castella  in  the  order 
of  their  size  on  a descending  scale.  It  seemed  expedient  to  sep- 
arate the  British  castella  from  those  in  Rhaetia  and  Germany,  for, 
as  will  appear,  the  relation  between  area  and  numerical  strength 
in  Britain  was  quite  different  from  that  which  prevailed  in  the 
other  two  provinces. 


CASTELLA  AND  AREA  GARRISONS, 

reckoned  in  square  meters. 


1. 

Aalen 

60,740 

2. 

Okarben 

57,966 

3. 

Echzell 

54,891 

4. 

Heidenheim 

52,845 

5. 

Niederbieber 

50,905 

6. 

Welzheim  (west) 

42,748 

7. 

Pforing 

38,774 

Romanorum. 

8. 

Ruffenhofen 

37,527 

9. 

Butzbach 

33,345' 1 

10. 

Saalburg 

32,593 

civium  Romanorum. 


13The  statistics  and  other  data  concerning  the  German  castella,  both 
in  this  present  connection  and  in  general  throughout  the  paper,  are 
taken  from  the  official  reports  of  the  excavation  carried  on  under  the 
oversight  of  jthe  Imperial  Limes-Commission,  as  published  under  the 
title,  Der  Obergermanisch-Raetische  Limes  des  Roemerreiches  im  AuR 
trage  der  Reichs-Limes-Eommission,  Heidelberg,  1894—.  The  references 
will  be  made  to  the  different  numbers,  or  Lieferungen,  in  which  the 
publication  is  appearing.  For  information  regarding  castella  which  are 
not  yet  included  in  this  work,  I have  had  recourse  to  Von  Cohausen, 
Der  Roemische  Orenzwall  in  Deutschland.  In  the  following  table  my 
authority  for  the  apportionment  of  the  garrisons  is  Cichorius  in  his 
articles  on  Ala  and  Cohors  in  Pauly-Wissowa,  Real-encyclopaedie,  Vol.  I, 
columns  1224-1270,  and  Vol.  IV.  columns  231-356.  In  a few  instances 
his  views  have  been  revised  in  the  light  of  the  more  recent  discoveries 
as  published  in  the  reports  of  the  Limes-Commission. 

14At  an  earlier  period  the  fort  contained  only  27,262  square  meters. 


14 


GARRISONS. 


CASTEEEA  AND  AREA 
reckoned  in  square  meters. 


11. 

Markobel 

32,538 

12. 

Eangenhain 

31,903... 

igum. 

( cohors  IX  Batavorum  equitata 

13. 

Weissenburg 

30,945... 

( ala  I Hispanorum  Auriana.15 

14. 

Obernburg 

29,800... 

tata  civium  Romanorum. 

15. 

Arnsburg 

29,538... 

16. 

Marienfels 

28,500... 

17. 

Ober-Florstadt 

28,365... 

18. 

Heddesdorf 

28,364... 

19. 

Niederberg 

27,993... 

20. 

Theilenhofen 

27,440... 

21. 

Pfiinz 

27,390... 

22. 

Mainhardt 

27,217... 

23. 

Oberscheidental 

20,694 

24. 

Miltenberg 
27,200' 0 

25. 

Riickingen 

26. 

Gorch 

(28. 

27. 

Bockingen  I 
19,  876.  | 29. 

1 

30. 

Wiesbaden 

31. 

Benningen 

21,856 

cohors  I Sequanorum  et  Rau- 


racorum  equitata. 

25,200 cohors  III  Delmatarum  quin- 

24  684  genaria  [as  shown  by  the 

mention  of  a prefect  in  an 
inscription,  cf.  page  39.] 


Oehringen  (west)  'J 

OehringVnW)  [Cohors  1 Helvetiorum  " 
22,289  J 


22,687 

32.  Murrhardt 

21,905  ...cohors  XXIV  voluntariorum 
civium  Romanorum. 


33. 

Hofheim 

21,87318  

34. 

Niedernberg, 

21,766 

35. 

Wahlheim 

21,666 

.cohors  I Asturum  (3). 

36. 

Gross-Krotzenburg  21,525 

.cohors  IV  Vindelicorum. 

37. 

Dambach 

21,505 

38. 

Neckarburken 

39.  Osterburken  • 

(west)  20,777 

21,423  .... 

.cohors  III  Aquitanorum  civi- 
um  Romanorum. 

40. 

Buch 

20,950 

41. 

Waldmossingen 

20,507 

15.  These  two  bodies  occupied  the  fort  successively  (cf.  Lieferung  XXVI,  page  25). 

16.  When  the  outer  line  from  Miltenberg  to  Welzheim  was  traced  under  Antoninus 
Pius,  the  cohort  which  had  been  stationed  at  Oberscheidental  was  transferred  to  Milten- 
berg. In  general,  the  garrisons  of  the  inner  line  (excepting  the  numeri ) were  moved  to 
the  nearest  stations  on  the  outer  line.  I have  placed  the  corresponding  castclla  together, 
for  the  sake  of  comparison,  whenever  their  garrisons  are  known  to  have  been  the  same. 

17.  There  exists  evidence  pointing  to  an  earlier  occupation  of  Bockingen  by  cohors 
V Delmatorum. 

18.  The  later  stone  castellum. 


IS 


GARRISONS. 


CASTEEEA  AND  AREA 
reckoned  in  square  meters. 


42. 

Schierenhaf 

20,504 

43. 

Unterbobingen 

20,042 

* 

44. 

Zugmantel 

18,096 

45. 

Urspring 

17,874 

46. 

Sulz 

17,500 

47. 

Capersburg 

16,401 

48. 

Welzheim  (east)  16,360 

49. 

Holzhausen 

14,300 

orum. 

50. 

Neckarburken  (east)  9,775 

sium. 

51. 

Walldiirn 

8,134 

52. 

Worth 

7,682 

53. 

Hunzel 

7,484 

54. 

Arzbach 

7,389 

55. 

Heftrich 

7,240 

56. 

Feldberg 

7,240 

57. 

Kernel 

7,159 

58. 

Heldenbergen 

7,050 

59. 

Halheim 

6,694 

60. 

Vielbrunn 

6,214 

61. 

Seckmauern 

6,094 

62. 

Wiirzberg 

5,905 

63. 

Hesselbach 

5,905 

64. 

Schlossau 

5,789 

tiensium. 

65. 

Eulbach 

5,730 

66. 

Trennfurth 

5,574 

67. 

Eiitzelbach 

5,189 

BRITISH  CASTEELA  AND  GARRISONS. 

AREA  IN  SQUARE  YARDS. 

1.  Camelon  28,800 

2.  Chesters  (Cilurnum)  27,400 ala  II  Asturum. 

3.  Housesteads  (Borcovicium)  24,000 cohors  I Tungrorum  miliaria. 

4.  Castlecary  17,690 

5.  Greatchesters  (Aesica)  16,600 cohors  I Asturum. 


The  area  of  the  following'  British  forts  on  the  line  of  the 
Roman  wall  can  only  be  given  approximately  in  acres  (on 
the  authority  of  Bruce,  op.  cit.). 

Wallsend  (Segedunum)  3)4 cohors  IV  Lingonum  equitata. 

Rutchester  (Vindobala)  3)4 cohors  I Frisiavonum. 

Halton  Chesters  (Hunnum)  4 )4 ala  Sabiniana. 

Carrawburgh  (Procolitia)  3)4 cohors  I Batavorum. 

Chesterholm  (Vindolana)  3% cohors  IV  Gallorum  equitata. 

Caervoran  (Magna)  3)4 cohors  II  Dalmatarum. 

Birdoswald  (Amboglanna)  5)4 cohors  I Aelia  Dacorum. 


16 


[The  names  of  the  castella  in  Britain  along  the  boundary  on 
the  Solway-Tyne  line,  per  linearn  vaUi,  are  given  in  the  Notitia 
Dignitatum.  Occidents,  chap.  38,  page  114.  The  application  of 
the  names  to  the  forts  as  far  as  Birdoswald  (Amboglanna)  is 
established  on  the  basis  of  epigraphic  evidence.  West  of  Birdos- 
wald (Amboglanna)  the  correlation  between  the  ancient  names 
and  the  sites  of  the  camps,  which  are  known,  cannot  be  determined 
on  account  of  the  lack  of  inscriptions.] 

Considering  first  the  castella  on  the  limes  in  Germany  and 
Rhaetia,  we  notice  that  they  fall  into  five  general  classes  with 
respect  to  their  extent.  The  first  of  these  divisions  contains  five 
castella , varying  in  area  from  Aalen  with  60,740  square  meters  to 
Niederbieber  with  50,905.  It  is  evident  from  the  garrison  of 
Heidenheim  that  these  forts  were  intended  for  alae  miliariae.  The 
next  class,  consisting  of  three  forts,  was  doubtless  the  class  of 
castella  for  the  alae  quingenariae.  These  varied  in  size  from 
42,748  down  to  37,527  square  meters.  In  considering  the  camps 
of  the  cohorts  it  is  evident  from  a comparison  between  Ober- 
scheidental  and  Miltenberg,  which  were  occupied  in  succession  by 
a cohors  equitata.  that  we  must  make  a distinction  between  the 
practice  of  the  earlier  and  later  period.  For  the  period  of  the 
occupation  of  the  outer,  Miltenberg-Welzheim,  line,  the  difference 
in  size  between  Miltenberg  and  Riickingen  may  be  taken,  per- 
haps, as  representing  the  point  of  division  between  the  class  of 
castella  intended  in  general  for  cohortes  equitatae  and  those 
erected  for  the  cohorts  which  contained  no  cavalry,  although  the 
first  of  these  classes  contains  Weissenburg,  which,  with  respect 
to  the  relation  of  its  area  with  the  size  and  character  of  its  garri- 
sons, is  quite  exceptional.  For  it  was  occupied  successively  by  a 
cohors  equitata  miliaria  and  an  ala.  If  this  division  be  warranted 
on  the  basis  of  the  evidence  at  hand,  the  larger  of  these  classes 
contains  fifteen  castella,  with  areas  which  vary  from  33,345  down 
to  27,200  square  meters.  The  next  class,  that  of  the  ordinary 
cohorts,  would  then  extend  from  25,200  to  I4,300.19 

iSThe  only  inscriptional  evidence  which  we  have  pointing  to  the 
presence  of  soldiers  at  the  eastern  fort  at  Welzheim  mentions  the 
Brittones  Exploratores,  a numerus,  although  the  fort  seems  too  large  to 
belong  to  the  numerus  class.  It  has  been  suggested  (Lieferung  XXII, 
page  28)  that  the  Cohors  Antoniniana  was  divided,  one  part  being  sta- 
tioned at  Holzhausen,  the  other  at  the  neighboring  castellum  Zugmantel. 


17 


In  Britain  the  camps  intended  for  the  alae  seem  to  have  had 
an  area  of  from  about  4)4  acres  (23,490  square  yards),  as  at 
Halton  Chesters  (Hunnum),  to  about  5)4  acres  (27,400  square 
yards),  as  at  Chesters  (Cilurnum).  They  were  evidently  much 
smaller  than  the  forts  of  the  corresponding-  class  in  Germany. 
We  find  in  Britain,  moreover,  evidence  for  the  size  of  the  castella 
which  were  garrisoned  by  cohortes  miliariae.  Housesteads  (Bor- 
covicium),  with  an  area  of  approximately  24,000  square  meters, 
was  the  camp  of  the  cohors  I Tungrorum,  which  was  known  to 
have  been  a division  of  1,000  men.  The  cohors  I Aelia  Dacor- 
um , stationed  at  Housesteads  (Amboglanna)  [area  5)4  acres,  or 
28,710  square  yards]  was  almost  certainly  a cohors  miliaria,  since 
its  commanders  were  tribunes.20 

The  evidence  at  hand  shows  no  distinction  in  size  between  the 
forts  of  the  cohortes  quingenariae  equitatae  and  those  of  the  same 
numerical  strength  which  contained  only  infantry.  They  seem  to 
have  had,  generally,  an  area  of  a little  over  3 acres. 

The  usual  form  of  the  castella  is  that  of  a rectangle,  more  or 
less  elongated  and  with  rounded  corners.21 

The  castella , of  which  the  dimensions  are  known,  exhibit  a 
considerable  range  of  variation  in  the  extent  of  their  elongation, 
or,  in  other  words,  in  the  ratio  of  the  width  to  the  length.  At 
Housesteads  (Borcovicium),  where  the  oblong  form  is  most  pro- 
nounced, the  length  of  the  shorter  axis  is  60  per  cent,  of  that  of 
the  longer  one.  At  Osterburken  the  width  is  61  per  cent,  of  the 
length.  These  are  the  extreme  examples.  Hyginus  (op.  cit.  21) 
says  that  the  camp  should  have  a width  equal  to  two-thirds  of 
its  length.  An  investigation,  however,  into  the  relation  of  the 
width  to  the  length  of  the  castella  will  show  that  the  practice  was 
not  uniform.  Omitting  Halheim,  which  is  square,  and  Waldmos- 
singen,  which  is  not  rectangular,  we  may  examine  the  castella 
mentioned  in  the  list  above  (pages  14-16)  with  regard  to  the  rela- 

20See  page  39. 

2iThe  earlier  earth  forts  at  Hofheim  and  Waldmoessingen  had  the 
form  of  irregular  polygons.  The  later  fort  at  Waldmoessingen,  although 
a quadrilateral,  was  far  from  being  a parallelogram.  I have  over- 
looked slight  irregularities  in  the  form  of  some  of  the  other  castella. 
Halheim  and  Kesselstadt  were  square  in  plan,  but  Kesselstadt,  owing 
to  its  excessive  area  (140,625  square  meters),  can  not  be  included  in 
the  list  of  “cohort  castella.”  It  must  have  been  a legionary  camp 
(cf.  Lieferung  X,  Kesselstadt,  page  6). 


18 


tion  between  the  length  of  their  axes.  The  breadth  of  5 of  the 
65  castella  to  be  considered  is  from  60  per  cent,  to  70  per  cent, 
of  their  length.  In  17  others  it  lies  between  70  per  cent,  and  80 
per  cent.  In  23  it  is  between  80  per  cent,  and  go  per  cent.,  and  in 
21  between  go  per  cent,  and  100  per  cent. 

The  castella  were  usually  provided  with  four  gates,  one  open- 
ing in  each  side.  But  some  of  the  smaller  “numerus  castella”  had 
only  three  gates,  namely.  Liitzelbach,  Vielbrunn,  Eulbach,  Wiirz- 
berg,  Hesselbach  and  the  eastern  fort  at  Neckarburken,  while  one, 
Halheim,  has  but  two.  Mention  has  already  been  made  of  the 
extension  of  some  of  the  fortresses  in  Britain,  making  them  pro- 
ject beyond  the  line  of  the  mural  barrier  which  crossed  the  island. 
These  larger  castella  have  six  gates,  two  of  them  being  on  each  of 
the  sides  which  would  be  cut  by  the  stone  wall  if  it  were  extended. 
Chesters  (Cilurnum)  is  a good  example  of  the  forts  of  this  class.22 

The  probable  names  of  the  gates  may  be  more  conveniently 
discussed  in  connection  with  the  next  topic.  For,  as  will  appear, 
the  identity  of  the  several  gates  can  be  fixed  only  by  determining 
first  the  names  of  the  main  roads  of  the  camp  which  connect  them. 
But  the  roads  cannot  be  treated  apart  from  the  consideration  of 
• the  whole  interior  arrangement  with  which  their  position  and 
direction  is  intimately  connected. 

3.  INTERNAL  ARRANGEMENTS. 

Before  attempting  to  distinguish  the  various  parts  of  the  cas- 
tella it  will  be  convenient  to  discover  a standard  or  criterion  for 
determining  with  certainty  the  direction  in  which  each  fort  is  to 
be  considered  as  facing.  For  the  identity  of  the  front  not  only 
gives  us  a key  to  the  general  interpretation  of  the  interior  arrange- 
ment but  determines  the  assignment  of  the  names  to  the  different 
gates. 

It  is  usually  supposed  that  the  front  of  the  castella  was  the 
face  exposed  to  the  enemy,  and  observation  has  shown  that  the 
side  opposed  to  the  enemy  is  usually  one  of  the  short  sides.  But 
this  opinion  is  based  upon  statements  of  our  ancient  authorities 
which  have  reference  to  the  larger  camps,  the  castra;  yet  it  is  of 

22See  the  plan  of  this  castellum  on  page  44.  It  will  be  observed  that 
the  stone  wall,  or  continuous  barrier,  reaches  the  ramparts  of  the  fort 
just  south  of  the  more  northern  gateways  on  the  long  sides. 


19 


fundamental  importance,  throughout  the  present  discussion,  to 
distinguish  clearly  between  the  large,  temporary  camps  ( castra ) 
and  the  smaller,  permanent  castella. 

Since  we  have  no  direct  literary  or  inscriptional  evidence  to 
guide  us  in  our  enquiry  concerning  the  front  of  the  castella  we 
naturally  have  recourse  to  the  well-known  descriptions  of  the 
castra  with  a view  to  establishing  the  front  of  the  smaller  camps 
on  the  basis  of  the  apparent  analogy  of  their  arrangements  with 
those  of  the  larger  fortresses.  But  the  fact  is  generally  ignored 
that  the  testimony  of  the  ancient  authors  is  not  in  agreement  with 
regard  to  the  front  of  the  castra.  The  divergence  of  their  ac- 
counts might  suggest  that  the  practice  followed  in  the  orientation 
of  the  castra  was  not  uniform,  at  least  as  regards  their  depend- 
ence upon  external  circumstances. 

The  camp  is  variously  represented  as  facing  the  east  (Hygi- 
nus,  de  Limitibus  Constituendis , page  69;  Nissen,  das  Templum, 
page  11 ; Vegetius  I,  23),  the  enemy  (Vegetius  I,  23  ; Hyginus,  de 
Munitionibus  Castrorum , 56)  and  the  direction  from  which  water 
and  provisions  could  be  most  conveniently  brought  (Polybius  VI, 
27,  3). 23 

But  fortunately  the  accounts  given  by  the  ancient  authorities 
themselves  concerning  the  disposition  of  the  area  enclosed  within 
the  ramparts  of  the  castra  offer  sufficient  data  for  determining 
the  front  independently  of  any  conditions  external  to  the  fort- 
resses themselves  by  establishing  a principle  of  uniformity  in  its 
location  based  upon  a fixed  relationship  which  it  bears  to  some  of 
the  interior  parts.  The  castra  like  the  castella  were  rectangular 
in  form.  Two  lines,  called  the  cardo  maximus  and  decumanus 
maximus , which  crossed  at  right  angles,  served  as  base  lines  for 
the  orientation  of  the  camp  as  well  as  for  the  plotting  of  the  space 
within  it  (Polybius  VI,  28). 

The  course  of  the  cardo  was  represented  by  a principal  road 
which  crossed  the  camp  in  a direction  parallel  to  the  front  (Poly- 
bius VI,  27,  7 to  30,  3;  cf.  Hyginus,  Liber  de  Munitionibus  Cas- 
trorum, 14).  This  road  was  called  the  via  principalis  (Livy,  X, 
33,  1).  The  presence  of  a main  road  traversing  the  area  of  the 

23Yet  in  his  account  of  the  siege  of  Carthagena,  Polybius  (X,  9,  10) 
represents  Scipio  as  placing  his  camp  to  the  north  of  the  town,  with  its 
front  toward  the  south  and  the  defenses  of  the  enemy. 


20 


camp,  therefore,  reduces  the  problem  of  determining  the  front  to 
the  selection  of  one  of  the  two  sides  with  which  this  road  is  par- 
allel. The  other  main  road,  the  via  praetoria,  which  corre- 
sponded with  a section  of  the  course  of  the  decumanus,  did  not 
traverse  the  whole  camp,  but  what  is  especially  significant  about 
its  position,  it  extended  from  the  via  principalis  to  the  front  line 
of  the  castra  (Polybius  VI,  28).  Its  presence,  therefore,  iden- 
tifies as  the  front  of  the  camp  the  side  with  which  it  is  in  contact. 
But  to  fix  with  greater  precision  the  relative  position  of  the  front 
we  may  consider,  briefly,  the  location  of  the  praetorium  or  head- 
quarters. The  orientation  of  this  space,  which  was  rectangular 
in  plan,  was  so  adjusted  with  reference  to  the  car  do  and  decu- 
manus (or  they  to  it)  that  its  front  fell  into  line  with  the  margin 
of  the  via  principalis  or  else  extended  in  a direction  parallel  to  it 
at  a distance  of  50  feet  (Polybius  VI,  27,  1-7).  The  praetorium 
faced  the  line  of  the  via  praetoria  and  the  front  of  the  camp  (Hy- 
ginus,  de  Munitionibus  Castrorum,  12;  Polybius  VI,  28).  Thus 
the  front  of  the  camp  can  be  determined  by  the  orientation  of  the 
praetorium  as  well  as  by  the  position  of  the  via  praetoria,  while 
the  course  of  the  via  principalis  is  of  importance  in  establishing 
these  two  determining  factors. 

The  castra  had  four  gates,  one  at  each  of  the  extremities  of 
the  two  base  lines  (Hyginus.  de  Limitibus  Constituendis,  page 
180;  Josephus  III,  5,  2).  The  gates  at  the  extremities  of  the  via 
principalis  were  called  the  portae  principals  and  distinguished  as 
dextra  or  sinistra  according  to  their  position  on  the  right  or  left 
side  of  the  camp  (Hyginus,  de  Munitionibus  Castrorum,  14;  Livy 
IV,  19,  8,  XXXIV,  46,  9 and  XL,  27,  4.)  The  gate  which 
opened  in  the  rear  of  the  camp  was  called  the  porta  decumana 
(Livy,  X,  32,  9).  The  remaining  gate,  the  porta  praetoria,  and 
the  porta  decumana  are  often  mentioned  as  opening,  the  former 
in  the  side  exposed  to  the  enemy  (cf.  Hyginus,  de  Munitionibus 
Castrorum,  56;  Festus,  Ep.,  page  233;  Tac.  Hist.  IV,  30),  the 
latter  in  the  side  furthest  removed  from  the  enemy  (cf.  Caesar, 
Bellum  Gallicum,  III,  25,  2;  Tacitus  Ann.  I,  66).  These  state- 
ments, in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  porta  praetoria  is  evidently  the 
front  gate,  being  opposite  the  porta  decumana,  of  which  the  posi- 
tion at  the  rear  is  known,  are  proof  that  the  castra  usually  faced 
the  enemy.  Yet,  as  has  been  shown,  we  may  reasonably  assume 


21 


Front. 


CO 

P 

P 

C 

§ 

P 

o 

p 

Q 


CARDO 


CARDO 


bo 

a 


rt 

a 

co 


CO 

p 

p 

S 

P 

a 

p 

P 


General  Scheme  of  the  Relationship  of  the  Base  Lines  and  Central 
Building  of  the  Castella  to  their  Front. 


22 


that  this  practice  was  not  uniform  in  all  cases,  but  that  exceptions 
were  made  as  expediency  demanded. 

We  may  now  turn  our  attention  again  to  the  castella.  These 
follow,  in  their  general  arrangements,  the  plan  of  the  larger 
castra , and,  in  particular,  invariably  display  in  their  interior  the 
same  essential  features,  two  main  roads  and  the  rectangular  space 
corresponding  to  the  praetorium  in  the  same  relative  positions 
which  we  have  observed  in  the  castra.  It  seems  unquestionable, 
therefore,  that  these  parts  bear  the  same  relation  to  the  front  of 
the  castella  that  the  corresponding  parts  of  the  larger  camps  have 
been  shown  to  bear  to  their  front.  No  argument  can  be  brought 
against  this  assumption  except  that  in  some  instances  its  applica- 
tion would  clash  with  the  popular  notion  that  the  orientation  of 
the  castella  was  determined  by  the  position  of  the  enemy.  But 
the  supposition  that  the  castella  always  faced  the  enemy  is  based, 
as  we  have  seen,  upon  a statement  (cf.  Vegetius,  I,  23;  Hyginus, 
de  Munitionibus  Castrorum , 56),  which  applies  primarily  to  the 
castra.  I have  shown,  moreover,  that  this  assertion  cannot  be  ac- 
cepted as  an  infallible  rule,  even  when  applied  to  the  castra. 
Therefore,  its  assumption  as  the  standard  for  the  universal  prac- 
tice in  the  castella  is  not  justified  on  the  ground  of  analogy.  I 
have  shown,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  front  of  the  castra  can 
always  be  determined  on  the  basis  of  its  relationship  to  the  via 
praetoria  and  praetorium, and  we  are  justified  in  assuming  that  the 
same  relationship  holds  in  connection  with  the  corresponding 
parts  of  the  castella. 

It  is  doubtful  to  what  extent  we  are  warranted  in  applying  to 
the  castella  the  names  of  the  corresponding  parts  of  the  castra. 
But  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  roads  and  gates  of  the  smaller 
camps  agree  so  closely,  in  their  general  position,  with  those  of  the 
larger  ones,  it  is  expedient  to  follow  the  usual  custom  and  apply 
to  the  former  the  authorized  designations  of  the  latter.24 

In  connection  with  the  more  practical  problem  of  determining 
the  front  of  the  castella  of  which  remains  are  extant,  it  is  often 
necessary  to  ascertain  the  position  of  the  via  principalis  as  pre- 

24An  inscription  has  been  found  mentioning  the  erection  of  the 
porta  praetoria  at  Kutlovica  in  a castellum  (C.  I.  L.  Ill,  7,450).  It  is 
reasonable  to  suppose,  therefore,  that  the  names  of  the  three  remain- 
ing gates  in  the  castella  were  the  same  as  those  of  the  corresponding 
gates  in  the  castra. 


23 


requisite  to  establishing  the  identity  of  the  via  praetoria.  For  a 
third  road,  probably  called  the  via  decumana,  leaves  the  rear  line 
of  the  castella  at  right  angles  and,  like  the  via  praetoria,  extends 
in  the  direction  of  the  center  of  the  camp.  It  is  obvious,  there- 
fore, that  in  castella  in  which  the  remains  of  the  central  building 
are  not  sufficient  to  indicate  the  direction  in  which  it  faces  and 
where  only  vestiges  of  a short  section  of  the  via  praetoria  are  ex- 
tant, and  these  lying  near  the  porta  praetoria,  a confusion  might 
arise  regarding  the  identity  of  the  via  praetoria  and  via  decumana 
which  would  render  it  impossible  to  distinguish  between  the  front 
and  rear  of  the  castellum.  But  this  confusion  would  be  readily 
dispelled  by  ascertaining  the  location  of  the  via  principalis.  For, 
unlike  the  via  praetoria,  the  via  decumana  does  not  reach  the  via 
principalis  but  terminates  at  the  rear  line  of  the  space  reserved  for 
the  central  building.25 

A discovery  made  at  Hofheim  may  be  cited  as  evidence  to 
show  that  the  main  roads  in  the  castella,  as  in  the  larger  camps, 
represented  the  courses  of  the  lines  upon  which  the  orientation 
and  interior  division  of  the  enclosures  was  based,  and,  conse- 
quently, that  their  direction  was  of  equal  importance  in  determin- 
ing the  position  of  the  front.  In  the  stone  fort  at  Hofheim  (cf. 
Lieferung  VII,  Hofheim,  page  4)  two  clearly  defined  furrows  were 
found,  crossing  at  right  angles  in  front  of  the  central  building 
and  extending  under  the  main  roads.  These  must  have  repre- 
sented the  cardo  and  dccumanus.  The  same  phenomenon  was 
noticed  at  Heddernheim,  Okarben  and  Zugmantel. 

Proceeding  to  apply  the  method  developed  above  for  identify- 
ing the  front  of  the  castella  we  may  consider,  a little  more  in  de- 
tail, the  relative  location  of  their  parts.  But  first  it  will  be  of 
interest  to  determine  how  nearly  the  supposed  rule  that  the  cas- 
tclla  face  the  enemy  approximates  to  the  general  statement  of 
fact.  Thirty-eight  of  these  forts  may  be  enumerated  on  or  near 
the  limes  in  Britain  and  Germany  having  sufficient  remains  of  the 
central  buildings,  which  correspond  to  the  praetoria  in  the  castra, 
and  of  the  main  roads,  or  at  least  the  gates  by  which  the  position 

2oln  the  castra,  as  restored  from  the  accounts  of  Polybius  and 
Hyginus,  the  via  decumana  either  does  not  exist,  or  appears  as  a name- 
less road  of  insignificant  length. 


24 


of  the  roads  may  be  determined,  to  establish,  in  the  case  of  each 
fortress,  the  identity  of  the  front.26 

Twenty-six  of  these  face  in  the  general  direction  of  the  enemy, 
although  their  fronts  are  not  always  parallel  with  the  course  of 
the  limes .£7 

One  fort,  Walldiirn,  presents  an  angle  to  the  limes,  the  direc- 
tion of  which  may  be  taken,  in  general,  as  representing  the  direc- 
tion of  the  enemy.  The  other  eleven  present  either  a side  or  their 
back  to  the  enemy.28 

The  statement  is  usually  made  that  the  front  of  a fortified 
camp  is  one  of  its  short  sides.  This  is  substantially  correct,  as 
applied  to  the  castella,  for  the  fort  at  Castlecary  is  the  only  ex- 
ample of  a castellum  of  which  the  breadth  exceeds  the  length. 

In  the  castra  described  by  Polybius  and  Hyginus  the  via  decu- 
niana  is  laid  out  in  such  a position  in  relation  to  the  front  and  rear 
as  to  divide  the  space  enclosed  by  the  ramparts  of  the  camp  into 
parts  containing,  respectively,  about  one-third  and  two-thirds  of 
the  entire  area.  But  in  the  camp  of  the  earlier  period  the  via 
principalis  was  nearer  the  porta  decnmana  than  the  porta  prae- 
ioria.  In  the  camp  of  the  imperial  period  we  find  this  relation 
reversed.  It  will  be  of  interest  to  examine  the  castella  with  a 
view  to  ascertaining  what  practice  was  more  often  followed  with 
respect  to  this  feature  of  their  interior  arrangement. 

Limiting  our  investigation  to  forty-four  forts,29  in  which  the 

26Heidenheim,  Urspring,  Wiesbaden,  Hofheim  and  Okarben  are 
omitted,  although  the  direction  of  the  front  is  apparent  in  each.  Their 
location,  at  a considerable  distance  from  the  limes,  makes  doubtful  the 
particular  direction  which  we  should  consider  as  that  of  the  enemy  at 
these  localities  at  the  time  of  the  erection  of  the  forts.  Camelon  is 
also  excluded  from  the  present  discussion.  It  lies  outside  the  line  of 
the  limes  in  Caledonia. 

27They  are:  Castlecary,  Chesters  (Cilurnum),  Arzbach,  Hunzel, 
Feldberg,  Arnsburg,  Ober-Florstadt,  Markoebel,  Rueckingen,  Gross- 
Krotzenburg,  Niedernberg,  Obernburg,  Woerth,  the  western  fort  at 
Neckarburken,  Boeckingen,  Benningen,  Miltenberg,  Osterburken,  Main- 
hardt,  Murrhardt,  Welzheim,  Schierenhof,  Unterboebingen,  Theilen- 
hofen,  Pfuenz  and  Pfoering. 

28The  Saalburg,  Weissenburg  and  Niederbieber  face  in  a direction 
opposite  to  that  of  the  enemy.  Housesteads  (Borcovicium) , Butzbach, 
Niederberg,  Holzhausen,  Buch,  Heltrich  and  Aalen  offer  their  left  side 
to  the  enemy,  Langenhain  its  right  side. 

29The  thirty-eight  considered  in  the  discussion  above  (pages  24-25), 
with  Heidenheim,  Urspring,  Wiesbaden,  Hofheim,  Okarben  and 
Camelon,  which  were  purposely  omitted  (cf.  Note  26). 


25 


position  of  the  central  buildings,  main  roads  and  front  is  known, 
we  find  that  in  thirty-five  the  via  principalis  is  nearer  the  porta 
praetoria,30  in  four  it  is  nearer  the  porta  decumana  31  and  in  five  it 
is  central  or  practically  central.32 

Mommsen,  in  an  article  on  the  practorium  ( Hermes , Yol. 
XXXV  [1900],  p.  442),  to  which  we  shall  have  occasion  to  refer 
later,  points  out  what  he  considers  a ready  means  for  identifying 
the  direction  in  which  the  castclla  face.  He  observes  that  these 
forts  are  usually  oblong  in  shape,  the  sides  being  longer  than  the 
ends,  and  that  the  gates  in  the  side  walls  are  placed  at  a point 
twice  as  far  from  the  back  as  from  the  front.  If  this  were  true 
in  all  cases,  the  front  could  be  identified  readily  enough,  of  course, 
as  the  end  to  which  the  portae  principales  are  nearest.  But  we 
have  already  seen  that  the  relative  position  of  the  side  gates  and 
via  principalis  is  not  uniform.  The  application  of  Mommsen’s 
rule  for  determining  the  front  would  result  in  confusion  in  the 
five  forts  where  the  position  of  the  via  principalis  is  central33  and 
lead  to  an  erroneous  conclusion  in  the  four  examples  where  the 
via  principalis  is  nearer  the  porta  decumana. 

Although  the  via  principalis  is  more  often  nearer  the  porta 
praetoria  than  the  porta  decumana , such  is  not  the  case  with  the 
central  buildings.  Examining  the  same  castella  from  which  the 
data  were  drawn  for  the  previous  enquiry  with  regard  to  the  posi- 
tion of  the  via  principalis ,3i  we  find  only  five  instances  in  which 
the  central  building  is  nearer  the  porta  praetoria ,35 

In  sixteen  castella  the  central  building  is  central  or  very  nearly 


30Camelon,  Castlecary,  Housesteads  (Borcovicium),  Hofheim,  Okar- 
ben,  Niederbieber,  Butzbach,  Niederberg,  Arzbach,  Hunzel,  Holzbausen, 
Feldberg,  Saalburg,  Langenhain,  Arnsburg,  Markoebel,  Gross-Krotzen- 
burg,  Niedernberg,  Woerth,  the  western  fort  at  Neckarburken,  Boeckin- 
gen,  Benningen,  Miltenberg,  Wallduern,  Osterburken,  Mainhardt,  Murr- 
hardt,  the  western  fort  at  Welzheim,  Urspring,  Schierenhof,  Unterboeb- 
ingen,  Weissenburg,  Theilenhofen,  Pfuenz  and  Pfoering. 

siChesters  (Cilurnum),  Heftrich,  Rueckingen  and  Aalen. 

32Wiesbaden,  Ober-Florstadt,  Obernburg,  Heidenheim  and  Buch. 

33Cf.  note  32. 

34Cf.  note  29. 

35Housesteads  (Borcovicium),  Niederbieber,  Saalburg,  Butzbach  and 
Aalen. 

36Castlecary,  Hofheim,  Okarben,  Hunzel,  Langenhain,  Arnsburg, 
Markoebel,  Gross  Krotzenburg,  Niedernberg,  Woerth,  Boeckingen,  Oster- 
burken, Murrhardt,  Theilenhofen,  Pfuenz  and  Pfoering. 


26 


In  twenty-three  it  is  nearer  the  porta  decumana  than  the  porta 
praetoria.37 

We  would  naturally  suppose  that  the  porta  praetoria  was  the 
most  important  of  all  the  gates  of  the  castella.  For  it  offered  a 
means  of  exit  either  in  the  direction  of  the  enemy  or  the  source  of 
supplies.  Moreover,  to  those  entering  the  castellum  it  gave  ac- 
cess to  the  road  which  led  directly  to  the  front  of  the  central 
building.  The  construction  of  the  gates  of  many  of  the  camps 
testifies  to  this  importance  of  the  front  gate,  as  will  appear  from 
the  following  consideration. 

The  gates  were  either  single  or  double.  In  eight  of  the  cas- 
tella of  which  the  identity  of  the  front  is  certain38  all  the  gates  are 
double.39  In  seventeen  examples  all  the  gates  have  single  por- 
tals.40 But  in  thirteen  of  these  fortresses  the  gates  are  not  uni- 
form in  this  respect.41  In  these  thirteen  castella  the  distinction 
between  double  and  single  portals  doubtless  points  to  a corre- 
sponding difference  in  the  importance  of  the  gates.  Three  of 
them  have  double  portae  praetoriae  with  the  other  gates  single.42 
In  six  we  find  all  the  gates  double  except  the  porta  decumana.43 
At  Theilenhofen  the  portae  principals  are  double,  the  other  gates 
single.  At  Niederberg  the  porta  principalis  de.vtra  is  double,  the 
others  single.  Langenhain  has  a double  porta  principalis  sinistra 
with  the  others  single,  while  at  Arnsburg  both  the  porta  praetoria 
and  the  porta  principalis  dextra  are  double  and  the  other  gates 
single. 

37Camelon,  Chesters  (Cilurnum),  Wiesbaden,  Arzbach,  Niederberg, 
Holzbausen,  Heftrich,  Feldberg,  Ober-Florstadt,  Rueckingen,  Obernburg, 
Miltenberg-,  the  -western  castellum  at  Neckarburken,  Benningen,  Wall- 
duern,  Mainhardt,  the  western  fort  at  Welzbeim,  Heidenbeim,  Urspring, 
Schierenbof,  Unterboebingen,  Buch  and  Weissenburg. 

38The  forty-four  forts  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  discussion 
on  page  25. 

39Housesteads  (Borcovicium),  Chesters  (Cilurnum),  Obernburg,  the 
western  fort  at  Welzheim,  Aalen,  Buch,  Pfuenz  and  Pfoering. 

40Camelon,  Castlecary,  Niederbieber,  Wiesbaden,  Arzbach,  Hunzel, 
Heftrich,  Ferdberg,  Ober-Florstadt,  Woerth,  Rueckingen,  the  western 
castellum  at  Neckarburken,  Benningen,  Miltenberg, Wallduern,  Oster- 
burken,  Mainhardt. 

4iThe  character  of  the  gates  in  the  remaining  six  of  the  forts, 
where  the  front  is  known,  cannot  be  determined.  These  are  Heiden- 
heim,  Markoebel,  Gross-Krotzenburg,  Niedernberg,  Schierenhof  and  Un- 
terboebingen. 

42The  Saalburg.  Holzhausen  and  Murrhardt. 

43Hofheim,  Okarben,  Urspring,  Butzbach,  Boeckingen  and  Weissen- 
burg. 


27 


Thus  in  the  thirteen  castella,  where  the  gates  are  not  uniform, 
there  are  ten  double  portae  praetoriae,  nine  double  portae  prin- 
cipales  dextrae,  eight  double  portae  principales  sinistrae,  but  not 
a single  example  of  a double  porta  decumana.  Therefore,  while 
the  porta  praetoria  seems  to  be  the  most  important  gate,  it  is  still 
more  obvious  that  the  porta  decumana  is  the  least  important. 

The  application  to  the  central  building  of  the  “cohort  castella” 
of  the  term  praetorium,  which  denotes  the  space  allotted  to  the 
tent  of  the  commander-in-chief  in  the  larger  temporary  camps,  is 
probably  inaccurate.  Von  Domaszewski44  and  Mommsen  45  both 
called  attention  to  this  and  their  views  have  been  generally  ac- 
cepted; yet  it  is  difficult  to  avoid  the  use  of  the  term  praetorium, 
since  it  has  come  to  be  commonly  used  in  this  connection. 

The  term  praetorium  from  its  original  significance  as  the  com- 
mander’s tent  came  to  have  the  more  general  meaning  of  the 
commander’s  presence  as  in  the  expression  in  praetorio  militate. 
It  came  also  to  be  applied  to  residences  and  villas  intended  for  the 
use  of  the  emperor  or  provincial  governors.  In  inscriptions  the 
reference  is  usually  to  the  villas  of  the  latter. 

But  the  central  buildings  of  the  castella  are  not  residences,  nor, 
if  they  were,  could  the  term  praetorium  be  appropriately  used  for 
edifices  intended  for  the  use  of  subordinate  officers  such  as  the 
commanders  of  the  auxiliary  cohorts  and  alae.  According  to  von 
Domaszewski  the  central  building  was  called  the  principia.  An 
inscription  found  in  Scotland  in  1903,  subsequently  to  voft  Dom- 
aszewski’s  article,  may  be  cited  as  adding  to  his  evidence  to 
establish  the  correctness  of  the  term  principia  in  this  connection. 
This  inscription,  published  in  the  Westdeutsche  Zeitschrift 
(Korrespondenzblatt,  1903,  page  202),  mentions  the  dedication 
of  the  principia  by  cohors  VI  N erviorum. 

Forty-four  forts  have  been  enumerated  in  which  the  remains 
are  sufficient  to  determine  the  location  of  the  central  building.46 
But  we  may  omit  from  the  following  discussion  nine  of  these 
castella  where  the  vestiges  of  the  central  buildings  are  too  slight 
to  offer  any  serviceable  data  for  ascertaining  their  plan  and  in- 

uNeue  HeideTberger  Jahrbueclier,  XI  (1SS9),  page  142  ff. 

45 Hermes , XXXV  (1900),  pages  437-442. 

46Mentioned  in  connection  with  the  discussion  on  page  25. 


28 


terior  arrangement.47  However,  we  should  include  Waldmos- 
singen,  although  it  was  excluded  from  the  previous  investigation 
of  the  relative  positions  of  the  central  building  and  main  roads  on 
account  of  the  irregularity  of  its  general  plan.  Our  examination, 
therefore,  into  the  form  and  structure  of  the  central  buildings 
will  extend  to  thirty-six  examples. 

In  twenty-four  instances  it  has  been  possible  to  discover  the 
dimensions  of  these  buildings,  and  their  areas  are  found  to  vary 
between  400  and  3,951  square  meters.48 

Some  of  the  earlier  central  buildings  seem  to  have  been  erected 
in  wood.49  We  also  find  examples  of  a combination  of  wood  and 
masonry  in  different  parts  of  the  same  building  even  in  the  later 
period.50  At  Urspring  the  remains  point  to  a method  of  construc- 
tion resembling  a technique  which  is  very  much  in  vogue  in  Ger- 
many to-day,  the  central  building  being  what  is  known  as  a 
Fcichwerkbau;  cf.  Lieferung  XXIV,  Urspring,  page  11.  At  in- 
tervals of  a meter  perpendicular  wooden  supports  were  set  up  in 
the  ground.  These  were  afterwards  imbedded  in  a wall  of  rough 
stones  and  mortar  so  that  their  outer  faces  alone  appeared  as  a 
framework  dividing  the  masonry  into  regular  sections  or  panels. 
The  impression  of  the  posts  is  still  visible  in  the  remains  of  the 
wall,  although  the  wood  has  disappeared.  These  vertical  sup- 
ports were  probably  secured  in  position  by  horizontal  tie-pieces 
at  suitable  intervals. 

Most  of  the  central  buildings  known  to  us  were  built  with 
walls  of  solid  masonry. 

47The  castella  to  be  omitted  are  Camelon,  Castlecary,  Housesteads 
(Borcovicium),  Hofheim,  Okarben,  Gross-Krotzenburg,  Benningen,  Mil- 
tenberg  and  Wallduern. 

48The  areas,  reckoned  in  square  meters,  in  the  order  of  their  ex- 
tent, are  as  follows:  Heidenheim  3951,  Aalen  3708,  western  fort  at 

Welzheim  2758,  Butzbach  2172,  Obernburg  2060,  Pfoering  2052,  Ober- 
Florstadt  1892,  Saalburg  1880,  Niederberg  1654,  Pfuenz  1618,  western 
castellum  at  Neckarburken  1554,  Theilenhofen  1539,  Weissenburg  1360, 
Langenhain  1350,  Arnsburg  1302,  Murrhardt  1283,  Buch,  1088,  Cilur- 
num  972,  Waldmoessingen  907,  Wiesbaden  807,  Urspring  806,  Feldberg 
672,  Hunzel  541,  Heftrich  400. 

49Remains  of  the  wooden  central  building  at  Seckmauren  have  been 
found  (cf.  Lieferung  XIX,  Seckmauern,  page  3.) 

soThe  greater  part  of  the  central  building  at  Feldberg  was  in  wood, 
only  a small  portion  in  stone.  Upright  posts  a foot  square  were  sunk 
into  the  ground  to  the  depth  of  one  meter  at  intervals  of  2.50  to  3 
meters.  A siding  of  boards  was  probably  nailed  to  these  supports  (cf. 
Lieferung  XXV,  Feldberg,  page  8.) 


29 


The  central  buildings  contained  either  one  or  two  open,  rec- 
tangular courts. 

In  camps  where  two  courts  are  found  their  relative  position 
correspond  with  that  of  the  atrium  and  peristyle  in  a Roman 
house.  The  first  court  is  often  called  the  atrium  in  the  modern 
literature  dealing  with  the  subject.  In  general  the  earlier  forts 
had  central  buildings  with  only  one  court,51  and  the  development 
of  these  buildings  is  from  a simple  to  a more  complicated  plan. 


Plan  of  the  Central  Building  at  Wiesbaden. 


The  central  building  at  Wiesbaden  may  be  taken  as  a fair 
example  of  the  earliest  type  of  these  buildings,  the  one  in  the 
Saalburg  as  representing  their  characteristic  form  in  the  latest 
period.52 

siMurrhardt  is  the  only  known  example  of  a castellum  subsequent 
to  the  reign  of  Trajan  with  a single  court.  Aalen  and  Pfoering,  in 
Rhaetia,  have  double  courts,  although  they  go  back  to  the  period  of 
Trajan.  But  in  both  of  them  the  second  court  may  be  a later  addition. 

52Compare  the  plans  of  the  central  building  at  Wiesbaden  with  that 
of  the  Saalburg  indicated  on  the  map  of  the  fort  on  page  46. 


30 


The  central  building  at  Wiesbaden,  which  is  nearly  square  in 
plan  (26.27x30.75  meters),  consists  of  a rectangular  court  with 
a series  of  five  small  rooms  opening  upon  it  at  the  rear.  This 
court  was  once  surrounded  by  a portico.  The  bases  of  the  twenty- 
four  columns  which  supported  the  roof  have  been  discovered. 
Substantially  the  same  plan  is  found  in  the  castella  at  Urspring 
and  Waldmossingen  and  probably  at  Pfiinz.  Besides,  remains  at 
Weissenburg  point  to  an  earlier  arrangement  of  the  central  build- 


Plan  of  the  Central  Building'  at  Theilenhofen. 


ing  which  would  conform  to  this  general  type.  At  a later  period 
small  rooms  or  long  halls,  serving,  perhaps,  as  armories,  were 
laid  out  along  the  sides  of  these  single  courts.  Theilenhofen  is  a 
good  example  of  this  later  development  of  the  building  with  single 
court  where  series  of  rooms  have  been  added. 

A comparison  of  the  central  building  at  Theilenhofen  with  the 
one  at  Arnsburg  will  point  to  what  was  perhaps  the  line  of  devel- 
opment which  led  from  the  simpler  to  the  more  complicated  form 


31 


of  these  buildings.  At  Theilenhofen  the  two  passages  which  open 
into  the  rear  part  of  the  court  suggest  the  alae  of  a Roman  house 
in  connection  with  the  atrium.  The  hall  or  open  space  which 
crosses  the  central  building  at  Arnsburg  represents,  perhaps,  the 
enlargement  of  these  two  passages  in  combination  with  the  rear 
part  of  the  earlier  single  court.  In  any  case,  the  transverse  hall  or 
space,  as  at  Arnsburg,  was  the  prototype  of  the  rear  court  in  the 
buildings  with  two  courts.  For  all  the  inner  courts  are  oblong 
in  plan,  with  their  longer  sides  extending  in  a direction  parallel 


1 

1. 

R 

I 

i n 

I u 

s 

0 

Cl 

\J 

1 

LJ 

n" 

Si 

sj 

Plan  of  the  Central  Building  at  Arnsburg. 


with  the  front  of  the  central  buildings.  Chesters  (Cilurnum) 
shows  the  simplest  form  of  central  building  in  which  there  are  no 
rooms  at  the  sides  of  the  courts.  (See  the  map  of  this  castellum 
on  page  44).  In  most  instances  the  narrow  spaces  at  the  sides  of 
the  outer  court  are  occupied  by  rooms  or  long  halls. 

The  buildings  thus  far  mentioned  have  been  without  heating 
apparatus,  apses  or  corresponding  rectangular  projections  and 
cellars. 

In  the  central  buildings  of  the  later  period  one  or  more  rooms 
were  usually  provided  with  hypocausta,  that  is,  floors  which  were 


32 


elevated  sufficiently  to  permit  of  the  passage  of  hot  air  beneath 
them.  These  hollow  spaces  were  connected  with  furnaces.  The 
rooms  which  were  warmed  in  this  manner  were  usually  the  guard 
rooms  and  offices. 

A chamber  at  the  rear  of  the  central  building  was  regularly 
employed  as  a sacellum  or  shrine.  In  the  earlier  castella,  those 
in  which  the  central  buildings  resembled  the  one  at  Wiesbaden, 
the  shrine  was  undoubtedly  the  central  chamber  in  the  series  of 
five  rooms  which  opened  on  the  court  from  the  rear.  It  occupied 
a corresponding  position  at  the  rear  of  all  subsequent  castella. 
But  in  the  earlier  period  the  sacella  were  not  distinguished  archi- 
tecturally from  the  other  rooms  in  the  series.  Later  they  were 
often  constructed  with  rounding  or  rectangular  projections  reach- 
ing beyond  the  rear  wall  of  the  central  building.  The  apse  is  the 
commoner  form  of  this  projection.53  In  two  castella  (Buch  and 
Saalburg)54  the  shrines,  although  rectangular  in  plan,  extend  for 
a part  of  their  length  beyond  the  rear  wall  of  the  central  building. 
In  one  instance  (Heftrich)  the  whole  shrine  forms  an  extension 
to  the  central  building,  while  in  three  (Pforing,  the  western  cas- 
tellum  at  Welzheim  and  Osterburken)  the  walls  of  the  shrine  are 
erected  in  the  form  of  an  apse  within  but  with  no  outer  projection. 

The  military  standards  were  placed  in  the  sacellum  together 
with  the  statues  of  the  military  deities. 

It  was  customary  for  the  soldiers  to  deposit  their  savings  with 
the  signiferi , probably  because  the  latter  had  charge  of  the  signa 
to  which  divine  honors  were  paid.  The  expression  employed  in 
this  connection,  deponere  ad  signa , is  significant.  For  the  money 
was  actually  placed  in  the  presence  of  the  symbols  of  the  military 
deities.  In  the  later  period  cellars  urere  provided  for  the  security 
of  the  savings  together,  probably,  with  the  military  chest.  These 
cellars  were  usually  under  the  shrine.  They  have  been  found  in 
at  least  eight  castella. 

In  the  temporary  camps  a space  in  front  of  the  praetorium,  at 
the  junction  of  the  via  praetoria  and  via  principalis,  was  set  aside 

53lt  occurs  in  fifteen  examples  among  the  thirty-six  castella  under 
consideration  in  connection  with  the  central  buildings.  Murrhardt  is 
the  only  one  of  these  fifteen  central  buildings  which  is  known  to  have 
only  one  court.  But  Murrhardt  is  an  exception,  chronologically,  in 
having  a single  court,  since  it  was  not  erected  before  155  A.  D. 

54The  former  has  only  one  court  in  its  central  building. 


33 


for  assemblies  of  the  soldiers,  the  exercise  of  military  jurispru- 
dence and  the  execution  of  penalties.  The  excavations  at 
Urspring,  one  of  the  oldest  forts  in  Rhaetia,  have  revealed  the 
arrangement  of  the  corresponding  space  in  the  castella  of  the 
earliest  period  of  the  permanent  defensive  works  on  the  northern 
frontier.  In  the  fortress  mentioned  a space  of  520  square  meters 
(40  x 13  meters)  in  front  of  the  central  building  was  enclosed  by 
a wooden  barrier  or  fence,55  so  as  to  form  an  open  court.  This 
enclosure  could  be  entered  from  the  front  by  means  of  a large 
gateway56  which  opened  onto  the  via  praetoria.  The  barrier 
enclosed  the  central  section  of  the  via  principalis,  but  smaller  gates 
opened  at  each  end  of  it,  giving  access  to  the  portions  of  this  road 
which  were  not  included  within  the  enclosing  fence. 

At  a later  period  we  find  the  corresponding  spaces  in  front  of 
the  central  buildings  occupied  by  covered  halls.  These  are  prob- 
ably the  basilicae  mentioned  by  Vegetius  as  intended  for  military 
exercises  in  wet  weather.  They  must,  like  the  earlier  uncovered 
spaces,  have  served  also  as  the  places  of  assembly  for  the  soldiers. 

In  several  of  the  castella  there  may  have  been  assembly  halls 
erected  in  perishable  material  which  have  completely  disappeared. 
But  the  wooden  basilica  at  the  Feldberg  is  the  only  one  of  which 
the  outline  can  still  be  determined  from  the  remains.  Its  area 
was  20.30  x 8.85  meters  and  its  walls  were  constructed  with  up- 
right posts  sunk  into  the  ground  to  which  a siding  of  boards  was 
probably  nailed  (cf.  Lieferung  XXV,  p.  8). 

The  remains  of  ten  basilicae  are  known  to  us  which  were 
erected  in  stone.  The  area  enclosed  by  their  walls  varies  from 
478  to  1225.8  square  meters.57  The  basilicae  really  form  part  of 
the  central  buildings  having  common  walls  on  the  side  where  they 
adjoin  them.  They  are  always  oblong  in  plan,  their  longer  sides 
being  parallel  with  the  front  of  the  central  buildings  and  the  direc- 
tion of  the  carao. 

The  permanent  stone  basilicae  are  generally  of  the  later  period, 
although  four  ( Weissenburg,  Murrhardt,  Buch  and  Theilen- 

55Cf.  Lieferung  XXXIV,  Urspring. 

56Massive  stones  to  support  the  gate  posts  have  been  found. 

57The  areas  of  the  basilicae  in  these  nine  camps,  reckoned  in  square 
meters,  are  as  follows:  Aalen  1225.8,  Theilenhofen  1140,  Butzbach 

1007.5,  Welzheim  978.2,  Buch  699.75,  Unterboebingen  624.58,  Pfoering 
569,  Weissenburg  553.5,  Saalburg  520,  Murrhardt  478. 


34 


hofen)  out  of  the  ten,  which  are  known  to  us,  are  found  in  con- 
nection with  central  buildings  which  have  only  single  courts.  But 
in  the  case  of  one  of  these  four,  Weissenburg,  the  basilica  is 
known  to  be  a later  addition58  and  the  same  may  be  true  of 
others.59 

Six  of  the  basilicae  mentioned  are  longer  than  the  front  of 
the  central  buildings  to  which  they  are  connected  and  project 
beyond  them.60 

At  the  Saalburg  five  doors  open  from  the  basilica  (area  40  X13 
meters)  into  the  covered  portico  surrounding  the  atrium  or  fore- 
court. On  the  right  hand  side  of  this  court,  as  one  enters  it  from 
the  basilica,  there  is  a long,  narrow  hall,  supposed  to  have  served 
as  the  armamentarium  or  armory.  The  corresponding  space  on 
the  west  side  of  the  court  is  occupied  by  four  small  rooms,  the 
purpose  of  which  is  not  known. 

The  spaces  on  both  sides  of  the  shrine  at  the  rear  of  the  inner 
court  are  occupied  by  porticoes  where  statues  and  altars  of  the 
deified  emperors  were  erected.  On  the  east  and  west  sides  of  the 
inner  court  were  small  chambers,  heated  by  hypocausts.  One  of 
these  was  probably  intended  as  an  excubitorium,  or  room  for  the 
soldiers  on  guard  at  the  shrine.  Others  may  have  been  occupied 
by  the  tabularium  or  account  and  record  office  of  the  camp. 

The  central  building  was  the  most  essential  and  most  char- 
acteristic structure  in  the  castcllum.  In  several  camps  the  re- 
mains of  the  horrea  or  storehouses  have  been  found.  In  general 
no  remains  have  been  found  which  could  be  identified  as  buildings 
intended  as  lodgings  for  the  soldiers,  and  it  is  probable  that  in 
most  camps  the  troops  were  sheltered  in  tents  or  wooden  struc- 
tures. But  stone  barracks  have  been  found  at  Housesteads  (Am- 
boglanna)  and  the  Chesters  (Cilurnum)  in  Britain. 

4.  FORTIFICATIONS. 

It  is  usually  believed  that  the  earlier  castella  were  fortified  by 
means  of  earth  ramparts  and  that  a general  feature  of  their  later 

58Cf.  Lieferung,  XXVI,  page  14. 

59But,  as  has  been  pointed  out  already  (in  the  note  on  page  30), 
Murrhardt  is  an  exception  to  the  general  practice  that  the  buildings 
of  the  later  period  had  two  courts. 

60Theilenhofen,  Buch,  Weissenburg,  Pfoering,  Butzbach  and  Welz- 
heim. 


35 


development  was  the  gradual  substitution  of  stone  walls  for  the 
defenses  in  the  more  primitive  material  (cf.  page  6). 

At  Hofheim  and  Waldmossingen  stone  forts  replaced  earlier 
ones  in  earthworks,  as  has  been  shown  by  the  excavations. 
Marienfels,  an  earth  fort,  was  abandoned  at  the  time  of  Hadrian 
(Lieferung  XX,  Marienfels,  page  7).  Seckmauern  (Lieferung 


Cross  Sections  of  the  Ramparts  at  Urspringr,  representing  them  as 
before  and  after  the  Erection  of  the  Stone  Wall. 


XIX,  Seckmauern,  page  4) , an  earth  fort  in  the  Odenwald,  must 
have  been  abandoned  at  an  early  period,  since  the  limes  (as  repre- 
sented by  Hadrian’s  palisade)  crosses  it.  But  it  probably  repre- 
sents the  type  of  earth  fort  which  preceded  the  stone  “numerus 
castella”  at  Liitzelbach,  Vielbrunn,  Eulbach,  Wurzberg,  Hessel- 
bach,  Schlossau  and  Neckarburken,  the  other  “numerus  castella” 


36 


on  the  Odenwald  line.61  In  Britain  stone  castella  were  probably 
not  erected  earlier  than  the  reign  of  Antoninus  Pius,62  and  most  of 
those  on  the  line  of  the  vallum  in  Caledonia  were  probably  of 
earth.63 

The  remains  at  Urspring  are  a striking  illustration  of  the 
transition  from  earth  to  stone.  It  appears  from  the  excavations 
that  the  castellum  was  originally  defended  by  a massive  earth 
mound  or  rampart,  the  top  of  which,  having  a width  of  4.20 
meters,  served  as  a platform  for  the  defenders.  On  the  inner  side 
the  mound  sloped  from  the  elevation  of  the  platform  down  to  that 
of  the  interior  of  the  fort,  but  on  the  outside  it  presented  a per- 
pendicular elevation,  being  faced  with  boards  which  were  sup- 
ported and  held  in  place  by  upright  posts  set  in  the  ground  at 
intervals  of  1.50  meters.  These  vertical  posts  were  anchored  by 
being  fastened  to  slanting  beams  and  placed  within  the  mass  of 
earth.  Later  a stone  wall,  about  two  meters  in  thickness,  was 
added  on  the  outside  as  a facing  or  revetment  to  this  structure  of 
earth  and  wood. 

We  should  not  suppose,  however,  that  stone  castella  were 
never  erected  in  the  earlier  period.  For  the  stone  forts  at  Hof- 
heim,  Sulz,  Heidenheim  and  Okarben  must  have  been  constructed 
before  the  time  of  Hadrian,  if,  as  is  commonly  believed,  they  were 
abandoned  under  his  reign. 

The  stone  walls  either  stood  alone  or  were  backed  by  earth 
embankments,  as  at  Urspring  in  the  later  period.  The  latter  prac- 
tice was  probably  more  common,  although  in  several  instances  it 
can  be  shown  that  no  earth  mound  could  have  existed.  Thus  at 
Okarben  (Lieferung  XVI,  Okarben,  page  4)  ashes,  broken  pot- 
tery and  other  refuse  is  found  quite  near  the  inner  side  of  the 
walls  at  the  level  of  their  base. 

6iSee  Lieferung  XIX,  Seckmauern,  page  2,  and  Lieferung  XXIII, 
Luetzelbach,  page  7. 

62Two  of  the  forts  lying  to  the  rear  of  the  vallum  of  Hadrian  (cf. 
page  14)  are  fortified  in  stone,  Aesica  and  Magnae,  but  their  fortifica- 
tions may  have  been  restored  in  the  better  material  at  a later  time. 
For  these  two  castella  appear  to  have  been  occupied  as  late  as  the  time 
of  the  Notitia  Dignitatum  (cf.  Occidentis,  chap.  38,  ed.  Boecking,  page 
114). 

63Castlecary  on  the  Antonine  vallum  with  stone  walls  is  probably 
exceptional.  Camelon,  1100  yards  north  of  the  vallum,  had  earth  ram- 
parts 40  feet  thick  at  the  base. 


37 


The  walls  vary  in  thickness,  ranging  from  about  one  to  about 
two  meters.  For  a long  time  their  height  was  in  doubt.  But  a 
fortunate  discovery  made  in  connection  with  the  examination  of 
the  site  of  the  castellum  at  Worth  has  established,  approximately, 
the  height  of  the  fortifications  at  that  point.  In  1882  a section 
of  the  wall  was  uncovered  lying  on  the  inner  slope  of  the  ditch 
where  it  had  fallen.  All  except  the  upper  part  lay,  as  it  had  for- 
merly stood,  as  a single,  cohesive  mass  of  concrete  with  stone 


Sectional  Representations  of  the  Walls  at  Worth  as  they  were  found 
lying-  in  1882  and  1887  and  as  the3T  must  have  stood  originally. 


facing.  After  a foundation  layer  of  70  centimeters  followed  32 
courses  of  squared  blocks  of  stone  with  a length,  altogether,  of 
4.15  meters.  Beyond  this  the  stones  forming  the  concrete  had 
lost  their  adhesion  and  stretched  in  confusion  for  a distance  of  85 
centimeters.  The  appearance  of  the  structure  as  a whole  was 
such  as  to  suggest  the  conjecture  that  the  loose  stones  at  the  end 
represented  the  breastworks  and  that  the  real  height  of  the  wall 
with  accompanying  embankment  of  earth  was  4.15  meters. 

A similar  investigation  was  made  at  Worth  in  1887.  At  the 
point  where  the  cutting  was  made  the  wall  had  lost  its  facing  of 
stones  for  a distance  of  2.30  meters.  Beyond  this  point  the  facing 
stones  were  intact  on  the  outer  side  (lying  underneath  as  it  fell) 
for  a distance  of  3.20  meters.  At  that  point  a slab  of  stone  was 


38 


found  forming-  part  of  a cornice  which  must  have  marked  the 
summit  of  the  wall  and  the  foot  of  the  breastworks.  These 
dimensions,  if  we  allow  70  centimeters  for  the  foundation,  point 
to  an  elevation  of  4.80  meters  for  the  platform  at  the  top  of  the 
wall,  apparently  disagreeing  with  the  results  of  the  earlier  exca- 
vation. But  the  previous  results  are  more  reliable,  for  the  part 
of  the  wall  investigated  in  1887  seems  to  have  broken  in  falling, 
so  that  the  upper,  more  intact  portion  may  have  slipped  further 
down  the  side  of  the  ditch  than  would  otherwise  have  been  the 
case. 

The  walls  of  the  Saalburg  (as  restored)  have  a height  of  4.80 
meters,  including  the  breastworks  and  battlements.  But  the  plat- 
form for  the  defenders  on  the  earth  mound  has  an  elevation  of 
only  2.20  meters. 

The  fortifications  of  the  castella  were  re-enforced  on  the  out- 
side by  one  or  more  ditches.  In  Scotland  forts  of  this  class  have 
been  excavated  with  as  many  as  five  and  six  ditches.  In  England 
and  in  Germany,  with  the  exception  of  Wiesbaden,  no  castella  are 
known  which  had  more  than  two  ditches.  But  Weisbaden  had 
three  ditches  on  three  sides,  although  the  fourth  side  seems  to 
have  had  no  ditch  at  all  (cf.  von  Cohausen,  op.  cit.  page  170). 
The  ditches  were  rarely  more  than  2 meters  in  depth. 

5.  COMMANDERS. 

A.  COMMAND  OF  THE  “COHORT  CASTELLA.” 

Since  each  fort  was  garrisoned  by  a single  ala  or  cohort,  it 
follows  that  the  praefects  and  tribunes,  who  commanded  these 
bodies  of  auxiliary  troops,  were  by  the  nature  of  their  position, 
commanders  of  the  “cohort  castella.”  The  officers  in  command 
of  the  alae  bore  the  title  of  praefect  ( praefectus  alae) , those  in 
charge  of  the  cohorts  of  1,000  men  were  usually  tribunes 
( tribunus  militant  cohortis),  of  the  others  praefects  ( praefectus 
cohortis)  .64 

A phenomenon  which  appears  in  many  of  the  castella  along 
the  boundaries  of  the  empire  should  be  taken  under  consideration 
as  throwing  further  light  upon  the  administration  of  these  fort- 
resses. In  many  of  the  castella  we  find  inscriptions  indicating 

64Cf.  the  articles  of  Cichorius  as  already  cited  in  note  13. 


39 


the  presence  of  legionary  centurions.  The  fact  is  striking,  for 
the  majority  of  all  inscriptions,  which  point  to  the  presence  of 
legionary  centurions  in  the  provinces  outside  the  camps  of  their 
legions  during  their  period  of  service,  are  found  in  castella  gar- 
risoned by  the  cohorts  and  alae.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
a legionary  centurion  who  had  been  detailed  from  his  legion  and 
stationed  for  some  time  in  the  camp  of  a division  of  the  auxiliary 
forces  would  be  second  in  command  of  the  castellum,  taking  rank 
in  this  respect  after  the  tribune  or  praefect  of  the  cohort  or  ala. 
I have  attempted  to  exclude  from  this  discussion  all  inscriptions 
which  are  probably  contemporaneous  with  the  date  of  construc- 
tion of  the  castella  or  mural  barriers,  such  as  the  stone  wall  in 
Britain.  For  the  presence  of  legionary  centurions  at  the  time  of 
the  construction  of  such  works  may  be  explained  by  the  fact  that 
these  officers  were  frequently  summoned  from  a distance  to  super- 
intend building  operations.  Their  presence,  therefore,  at  such  a 
time,  would  not  imply  a share  in  the  administration  of  the 
fortress.65  After  making  this  omission  the  following  inscriptions 
may  be  cited  to  prove  that  it  was  a common  practice  to  station 
legionary  centurions  in  the  camps  of  the  auxiliary  troops  even 
under  normal  circumstances.  I give  in  each  instance  the  site  and, 
so  far  as  known,  the  name  of  the  ala  or  cohort  forming  the  garri- 
son of  the  castellum. 

I.  BRITAIN. 

1.  Benwell  (Condercum).  Ala  I Hispanorum.  C.  I.  L. 
VII,  503.  A votive  offering  to  the  dens  Antenociticus  by  a cen- 
turion of  legio  XX  Valeria  Victrix.  C.  I.  L.  VII,  506.  The 
rendering  of  a vow  to  Dolichenus  in  behalf  of  Antoninus  Pius  by 
a centurion  of  legio  II  Augusta.  The  fragment  C.  I.  L.  VII, 
514,  is  similar. 

2.  Littlechesters  (Vindolana).  Cohors  IIII  Gallorum.  C. 
I.  L.  VII,  702.  Dedication  by  a centurion  of  legio  VI  Victrix. 
This  inscription  cannot  be  dated,  but  the  dedication  to  Fortuna 
makes  it  probable  that  the  centurion  was  regularly  stationed  at 
this  point  (cf.  Jahrbb.  d.  Ver.  v.  Altertumsfr.  im  Rheinlande, 
vol.  60,  page  52). 

65See  G.  H.  Allen,  Centurions  as  Substitute  Commanders  of  Auxili- 
ary Corps,  University  of  Michigan  Studies,  Humanistic  Series  I,  pages 
354-356. 


40 


3.  Greatchesters  (Aesica).  Cohors  II  Asturum.  A cen- 
turion of  legio  VI  erects  a sepulchral  stone. 

4.  Corvoran  (Magnae).  Cohors  I Hamiorum.  A centurion 
of  legio  II  Augusta  dedicates  to  Fortuna. 

5.  Manchester,  probably  the  site  of  the  camp  of  Cohors  I 
Frisiavonum.  C.  I.  L.  VII,  21 1.  Dedication  to  Fortuna  by  a 
centurion  of  legio  VI  Victrix. 

6.  Bowes.  Cohors  I Thracum.  Restoration  of  a building 
under  the  direction  of  a centurion  of  legio  VI  Victrix. 

7.  Whitley  Castle.  Cohors  III  Nerviorum  civiurn  Roman- 
orum.  Dedication  to  Hercules  by  a centurion  of  legio  VI  Vic- 
trix. 

II.  GERMANY. 

1.  Ems,  known  to  be  the  site  of  a castellum,  although  the 
body  of  troops  forming  the  garrison  has  not  been  identified.  The 
rendering  of  a vow  to  Fortuna  by  a centurion  of  legio  VIII 
Augusta. 

2.  Wiesbaden.  Cohors  II  Raetorum.  Brambach,  C.  I.  Rh., 
1529.  A legionary  centurion,  c(enturio)  leg(ionis)  VII  [1], 
dedicates  to  Apollo. 

3.  Seligenstadt.  Cohors  I civiurn  Romanorum.  C.  I.  Rh,. 
1406.  A centurion  of  legio  XXII  Primigenia  dedicates  an  altar, 
204  A.  D. 

4.  Miltenberg.  Cohors  I Sequanorum  et  Rauracorum. 
Jahrbb.  d.  Ver.  v.  Altertumsfr.  im  Rhcinlande,  vol.  60,  page  52. 

6.  Osterburken.  Cohors  III  Aquitanorum.  Lieferung  II, 
page  38.  Dedication  to  Minerva  by  T.  Atlonius  Forlio  . . . 

c(enturio)  ex  comic (ulario  et  Placidius  Placidinus  c(enturio) . 
The  inscription  does  not  state,  it  is  true,  that  these  men  were 
legionary  centurions.  But  a comparison  of  this  inscription  with 
the  one  cited  above  at  Miltenberg  and  another  found  at  Oehr- 
ingen  (Lieferung  V.,  Oehringen,  page  27)  will  show  that  the 
first  of  the  two  individuals  was  probably  a legionary  centurion, 
also  the  further  consideration  that  carnicularii  were  regularly  ad- 
vanced to  the  position  of  legionary  centurions.60  Further  ex- 

66This  is  shown  by  the  following  inscriptions:  C.  I.  L.  Ill,  3846; 

VI,  414,  1645;  VIII,  702;  IX,  5338;  X,  1763;  XI,  3108,  5693;  XIII,  1832; 
C.  I.  Rh.  1304,  1559. 


41 


amples  of  the  same  nature  appear  in  Rhaetia ; C.  I.  L.  Ill,  5876, 
'5937;  in  Dacia;  C.  I.  L.  Ill,  1334,  7858;  in  Cappadocia;  C.  I.  L. 
Ill,  242;  and  in  Africa ; C.  I.  L.  VIII,  I759I.07 

Most  of  the  inscriptions  mentioned  refer  to  thank  offerings  such 
as  officers  might  be  expected  to  make  at  the  successful  termination 
of  a definite  portion  of  their  service.  Five  are  dedications  to  For- 
tuna.  It  is  known  that  the  tribunes  and  prefects  of  equestrian 
rank,  who  were  commanders  of  the  bodies  of  auxiliary  troops, 
commonly  made  such  offerings,  especially  to  Fortuna,  at  the  com- 
pletion of  their  year  of  command.  We  naturally  infer  that  the 
centurions  also,  after  the  termination  of  the  period  of  appointed 
service  in  the  same  localities,  paid  the  vows  which  they  had  made 
upon  their  arrival.  It  seems,  therefore,  to  have  been  the  policy 
under  the  empire  to  station  in  many  of  the  castella  legionary  cen- 
turions as  well  as  officers  of  equestrian  rank.08 

These  centurions,  then,  were  second  in  command  of  the  cas- 
tella where  they  were  stationed,  acting,  perhaps,  as  chiefs-of-staff, 
to  the  prefects  and  tribunes.  Their  position  might  be  compared 
to  that  of  the  praefecti  castrorum  in  the  legionary  camps. 

B.  COMMAND  OF  THE  "NUMERUS  CASTELLA/'’ 

As  has  already  been  observed  (page  40),  the  smaller  castella, 
those  which  contained  an  area  of  less  than  9,775  square  meters, 
were  assigned  to  the  numeri.  The  area  of  these  castella  varied 
greatly,  and  according  to  Mommsen,  Hermes  XIX  (1884),  page 
288,  there  was  a corresponding  diversity  in  the  size  of  the  bodies 
of  troops  which  were  assigned  to  them  as  garrisons,  the  numeri 
ranging  in  strength  from  300  to  900. 

Both  centurions  with  the  title  praepositus  (C.  I.  L.  VIII, 
2494,  9745,  18007,  18008,  Brambach,  C.  I.  Rh.,  1739;  Cagnat, 

670ne  might  cite  here  the  inscriptions  C.  I.  Rh.  1559;  C.  I.  L.  Ill, 
8484;  III,  141472,  141474;  Ephem.  Epig.  VII  (1892),  No.  1071;  West- 
deutsche  Zeitschrift,  XI  (1892),  Korrespondenzblatt  SI,  all  of  which 
mention  dedications  made  by  auxiliary  corps  at  their  headquarters 
under  the  supervision  of  legionary  centurions.  But  there  is  some 
reason  to  suppose  that  these  centurions  were  in  actual  command  of  the 
bodies  of  troops  mentioned. 

6SA  striking  example  is  found  in  Tacitus,  Annals  XII,  45-46;  partic- 
ularly significant  are  the  words — Castellum  Gorneas,  tutum  loco 
acpraesidio  militum,  quis  Caelius  Pollio  praefectus,  centurio  Casperius 
praeerat. 


42 


D Annie  Eftigraphique,  Revue  Archiologique , Vol.  XXVI 
(1895),  page  275,  No.  20,  Vol.  XXX  (1897),  No.  118,  Vol. 
XXXVII  (1900),  page  510,  No.  197 ( and  officers  of  equestrian 
rank  with  the  titles  jqraefectus  (C.  I.  L.  VIII,  9906,  9907;  C.  I. 
Rh.  991;  C.  I.  G.  67713),  praefositus  (C.  I.  E.  II,  1180;  VIII, 
9047,  9358,  9962;  XI,  3104;  Cagnat,  LA  Annie  Ivfiigrafthique, 
Revue  Archiologique , XIV  (1889),  page  443,  No.  187)  and 
tribunus  (C.  I.  E.  VIII,  9381,  11,343;  Ephem.  Epig.  VII 
(1892),  No.  1092)  are  found  in  command  of  the  numeri. 

No  chronological  distinction  between  the  command  of  numeri 
by  centurions  and  by  officers  of  equestrian  rank  can  be  made  on 
the  basis  of  the  evidence  at  hand.  But  in  view  of  the  variety  in 
rank  and  dignity  of  the  commanders,  which  seems  to  point  to  a 
wide  range  of  diversity  in  the  importance  of  the  commands,  and 
of  the  great  difference  in  size  of  the  “numerus  castella,”  it  seems 
probable  that  the  essential  factor  in  determining  the  choice  and 
title  of  the  commanders  was  the  numerical  strength  of  the  numeri 
themselves. 


43 


CILURNUM 


Plan  of  the  Roman  Castellum  at  Chesters  (Cilurnum),  from 
Bruce,  Handbook  to  the  Roman  Wall. 


44 


Nr.  5 KasteU  Hunzel  liegt  sudlioh  von  Punkt  5.  Nr.  61 » Kastell  Sulz  sudlich  von  Rottonburg,  Nr.  61  i Kastell  Waldmossingen  sQdwestlich  von  Rottenburg. 


obergermanlschen  und  raetlschen  Limes. 

• feil^oslellleo,  Ovormuthete#  r6ml«chM  Kastell. 


Plan  of  the  Roman  Castellum  “Saalburg''’. 

46 


By  permission  of  "Records  of  the  Past”.  Washington,  D.  C. 
Southwestern  Corner  of  the  Fortifications  of  the  Saalburg  (restored). 


By  permission  of  "Records  of  the  Past”.  Washington.  D.  C. 
South  Front  of  the  Saalburg'  with  Porta  Praeturia  (restored.) 


47 


By  permission  of  “Records  of  the  Past'1.  Washington.  D.  C. 

Fort  a Praeioria  of  the  Saalburg-  (restored). 


By  permission  of  “Records  of  the  Past'',  Washington.  D.  C. 

Sacellum  or  Shrine  at  the  Saalburgf  (restored). 


/ 


L 





